Back
Orders Bombay Shaving Co. To Take Down Ad Called Mockery Of Court
The on Wednesday directed to remove an advertisement that it described as an "" of the judiciary, following a filed by . Justice Jyoti Singh, presiding over the matter, expressed strong displeasure with the commercial's courtroom setting and the portrayal of a judge, warning the company against re-uploading the content in its existing form.
The dispute arose from a video advertisement released by
, the parent company of
, which featured a mock courtroom scene. Gillette alleged that the ad disparaged its razors by implying superiority of the defendant's blades. During the hearing, Justice Singh questioned the necessity of using a judicial backdrop, remarking,
"I don't see any reason why anyone will be advertising in a court setting like this."
The court further noted that the depiction of a judge examining a razor amounted to "
," rejecting the company's defense that the ad was merely humorous.
Background and Initial Orders
Gillette's counsel,
, presented a storyboard to the court, arguing that the advertisement referenced earlier litigation between the parties. The court had initially asked
to modify the ad, but when the company returned with changes—removing a frame about a legal notice and altering the razor's design—the judge remained unconvinced. A proposed
stating that the blade was compatible with multiple third-party handles was dismissed by Justice Singh, who said, "I don't think so." The court also questioned the ad's references to product age, adding,
"If you think you are a good brand, why do you have to do this kind of a thing, I don't understand."
The Mockery of the Courtroom Setting
The central flashpoint was the advertisement's use of a courtroom and a judge character. When counsel for
,
, argued that the company intended no disrespect and sought to inject humor, the judge retorted,
"I don't know what your client's definition of mockery is if this is not mocking the court."
The court emphasized that the ad's framing could not be justified as lighthearted, given the serious context of a judicial proceeding.
"Do you think they are doing with this razor issue in a court? ... The judge is shown grasping at it. What else is mockery?"
Justice Singh said, rejecting the cosmetic changes as insufficient.
"I think you should take down all of this property because I think you just seem to have done some little cosmetic dressing here and there. It's not working out."
Social Media Reaction and Court's Warning
Gillette's counsel also drew attention to a social media post by Shantanu Deshpande, identified as a promoter of
, who had celebrated a news report about the litigation.
"He celebrates the fact that he has been taken to court,"
Lall submitted. This further irked the bench, which pressed the defendant to decide on removing the ad. Initially, the company offered to delete only the courtroom scenes, but the judge insisted on a complete takedown, stating,
"But I still don't understand. It's very confusing. So it's better that you take all of them down right now."
The court recorded an
from the defendant to remove the advertisement from pages one to 28 of the storyboard filed with the plaintiff's documents, and to share a revised ad proposal with Gillette's counsel by evening. Justice Singh warned,
"One more time it goes up, you will be out. It's in my hand now."
New Advertisement Issue
Separately, Gillette sought an immediate restraint on a newly released advertisement by
, but the court declined, noting that it would not intervene without a proper challenge. Justice Singh orally remarked,
"I am not going to permit you, you do what you have to. If there is a challenge, there will be a challenge."
The defendant's counsel offered to file a reply within a day, allowing the court to hear the dispute concerning the new ad separately. The matter is listed for further hearing on Thursday.
Legal Analysis and Implications
This case underscores the judiciary's intolerance for commercial exploitation of its imagery, particularly when it risks trivializing court proceedings. Product disparagement suits under trademark law and common law require a careful balance between competitive advertising and fair comment. The 's strong reaction serves as a caution to advertisers that creative freedom does not extend to mocking legal institutions. The ruling also highlights the importance of disclaimers: while the defendant proposed one, the court found it insufficient to cure the underlying disparagement or mockery.
For legal professionals, the case reinforces the principle that advertisements referencing litigation or court settings must be handled with extreme sensitivity. Any perceived mockery of the judiciary can invite not only but also the court's ire, potentially leading to . The warning that re-uploading the ad would result in the company being "out" suggests that the court may consider punitive measures if its orders are violated.
Conclusion
The 's order compels to retract its controversial advertisement and reconsider its marketing strategy. The incident serves as a reminder that while is permissible, it must not cross the line into disparagement or disrespect toward the legal system. As the matter returns to court tomorrow, the focus will shift to the new advertisement and whether it too runs afoul of similar norms. For now, the court has made its position clear: cannot come at the cost of .
