Back
Restrains Over Revised Ad Citing No Perceptible Difference
The has restrained (BSC) from airing its revised advertisement in a suit filed by , holding that on a review, there is “no perceptible difference in the impact” between the new version and the original ad that BSC had already undertaken to withdraw. The order, passed by Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani on a , underscores the high bar courts set when parties attempt to circumvent earlier undertakings through cosmetic changes to allegedly offending content.
The court issued notice on Gillette’s , which accused BSC of breaching its solemn to the court by substituting the original disparaging ad with a “revised” version that, according to Gillette, carried essentially the same message. Justice Bhambhani directed BSC to file replies to both the and Gillette’s pending application within a week. The matter is next listed before the court on , and before the Joint Registrar on .
Background of the Dispute
The litigation stems from a series of advertisements by that Gillette alleged mock and belittle its razors without explicitly naming the brand. In an earlier hearing, the court found one particular ad—styled around a fake court hearing complete with a judge character—to be an “outright mockery” of the case itself. That ad was directed to be taken down, and BSC gave an to the court to comply.
However, shortly after that , BSC released a new advertisement that Gillette argued was simply the original ad in a different wrapper. Gillette’s senior counsel, , contended that the revised version retained the same disparaging narrative and visual impact, thereby breaching the earlier . He sought contempt action, emphasising that the court’s order was not a mere suggestion but a binding direction.
Court’s View
Justice Bhambhani, after comparing the two advertisements, recorded his view that the revised ad “carries the same impact as the one already found objectionable.” The court observed that on first look, there was “no perceptible difference” in the overall effect on the viewer. While BSC’s counsel argued that the revised ad had genuinely dropped the objectionable parts and did not disparage Gillette, the court was not persuaded at this stage.
The judge noted that the raised serious questions about the of BSC’s compliance. By restraining BSC from running the revised advertisement until the next hearing, the court effectively put the company on notice that any attempt to dress up the same disparaging content in new clothes would not be countenanced.
Legal Implications for
This case highlights the fine line between permissible and actionable disparagement under Indian trademark law. While is not illegal—and indeed is often encouraged as a form of competition—courts in India have consistently held that it must not denigrate or belittle a competitor’s goods. The test is whether the advertisement creates an unfavourable impression about the competitor’s product in the mind of a reasonable consumer.
The ’s insistence on looking at the overall impact rather than a word-by-word or frame-by-frame comparison sends a strong signal to advertisers. A party cannot evade a court order by making superficial changes while retaining the core disparaging message. The court’s willingness to entertain a in such circumstances demonstrates that undertakings to the court are taken seriously, and any perceived circumvention will be met with .
Potential Impact on Practice
For legal practitioners, the order serves as a reminder that drafting and enforcing interim injunctions in advertising disputes requires careful attention to the specific content. When a party agrees to modify an advertisement, the court may later examine whether the modification is genuine or merely a ruse. Counsel advising clients in such matters should document the precise changes and ensure that the revised version does not carry the same disparaging subtext.
Moreover, the case may encourage brand owners to seek contempt relief more readily when they suspect that an opponent is not complying in spirit with an injunction. The expedited timeline—replies due within a week—reflects the court’s recognition that ongoing advertising campaigns can cause to goodwill and reputation if not swiftly checked.
Conclusion
The ’s interim restraint on ’s revised advertisement is a notable development in the law of and . By finding no perceptible difference between the original and the revised ad, the court has reinforced the principle that parties cannot avoid their undertakings through cosmetic tweaks. As the matter proceeds, the final outcome will likely provide further clarity on the boundaries of in India and the consequences of non-compliance with court orders. For now, the message is clear: when a court says an advertisement must come down, a slightly altered version that says the same thing will not pass muster.
