Back
Gillette Wins Relief as Orders Bombay Shaving Co to Remove Disparaging Ad
The has directed to take down its "Switch4" advertising campaign after finding it amounted to "" of the court, handing an interim victory to in a suit. However, the court refused to immediately restrain a fresh advertisement released by BSC, leaving that dispute for separate adjudication.
The case, heard by Justice Jyoti Singh, revolves around Gillette's allegations that BSC's campaign disparages its three-blade razor handles by promoting a four-blade cartridge as a superior alternative. While the court recorded BSC's to remove the original ad, it also flagged jurisdictional questions over whether such a dispute properly belongs before the .
The Advertisement Dispute
The controversy stems from BSC's "Switch4" campaign, which features actor Gajraj Rao and humorously questions the conventional three-blade razor model. The advertisement, though not naming Gillette explicitly, pitches a four-blade cartridge as a replacement for "Uncle Razor"—a term Gillette argued is unmistakably aimed at its dominant product. With an estimated 97% market share in the razor segment, Gillette contended that any campaign targeting an unnamed rival effectively targets it.
Gillette filed suit on , seeking urgent relief. The court granted , citing urgency. However, the proceedings quickly expanded beyond the core claim into a separate controversy: BSC's decision to set the advertisement in a courtroom, complete with a judge character.
Court's Stern Rebuke
During hearings on
, Justice Jyoti Singh took strong exception to the courtroom depiction. When BSC's counsel,
, sought to defend the sequence as humorous, the judge retorted,
"I don't know what your client's definition of mockery is if this is not mocking the court."
She added,
"Please don't even stand to defend this."
The court found no justification for using a judicial backdrop to sell razors.
"I don't see any reason why anyone will be advertising in a court setting like this,"
Justice Singh observed. She rejected BSC's proposed disclaimer that the featured blade was compatible with multiple handles, calling the changes
"little cosmetic dressing here and there."
Ultimately, she declared,
"I think it's
."
Gillette's counsel,
, also flagged a social media post by BSC's promoter, Shantanu Deshpande, who had celebrated media coverage of the litigation. The court warned BSC against reposting the advertisement in its existing form:
"One more time it goes up, you will be out. It's in my hand now."
Faced with the court's displeasure, BSC's counsel gave an to remove the impugned advertisement from all channels under its control and to share a revised proposal with Gillette by evening.
Compliance and the New Advertisement
When the matter resumed on , BSC confirmed it had fully complied—removing every reference to the court and the litigation from the original ad. However, a new campaign had since gone live, drawing immediate objection from Gillette.
Senior Advocate Lall described the new advertisement as "obscene" and urged the court to act without delay, arguing that allowing it to continue would effectively give
"its stamp of approval to this obscenity."
BSC countered that the new ad made no mention of Gillette or its products, and thus could not be restrained within the present suit.
Justice Jyoti Singh declined to examine the new advertisement at that stage, stating,
"I am not going to permit you, you do what you have to. If there is a challenge, there will be a challenge."
She granted BSC two weeks to file a reply on the new ad, with Gillette's rejoinder due thereafter. The court also noted that BSC's revised version of the original advertisement had been shared with Gillette but remained unaccepted.
Jurisdictional Questions Over IPD
Beyond the advertising content, the case has raised a significant threshold issue: whether a claim, without a direct link to , can be heard by the 's Intellectual Property Division.
During earlier hearings, Justice Singh questioned whether the dispute fell within the IPD's purview.
"
has to be in connection with the intellectual properties, right?"
she asked. She also remarked on the manner in which the suit was pleaded, observing,
"This is one case where there is no head or tail."
The court probed whether merely depicting a brand in an advertisement—without using its trademark—could bring the dispute under the IPD. When Gillette's counsel pointed to a depiction of a Gillette razor, Justice Singh countered,
"A razor can be from 100,000 companies."
The distinction between
and
also came under scrutiny, with the judge noting,
"It's not
at all, by your own pleading."
These jurisdictional observations could have far-reaching implications for how advertising disputes are litigated in the , potentially forcing plaintiffs to frame their cases more precisely around rather than generic .
Broader Implications for Advertising Law
The dispute is the latest in a series of advertising battles involving BSC. In , had approached the over a BSC Instagram reel contrasting its OmniBlade with OneBlade, leading to BSC agreeing to remove that content.
The present case underscores the delicate balance courts must strike between protecting brand reputation and permitting robust . While Indian law allows truthful comparative claims, the line is crossed when the advertisement disparages or denigrates a competitor's product. The court's strong reaction to the courtroom setting further highlights the judiciary's sensitivity to its own image being used for commercial gain.
Legal experts say the outcome of the jurisdictional question will be keenly watched. If the IPD is found to lack jurisdiction over standalone claims, litigants may need to file such cases in the commercial division or seek grounds to access the IPD. This could affect the speed and expertise with which such disputes are resolved.
Conclusion
The matter is next listed for hearing on , by which time BSC must file its reply on the new advertisement and the parties will likely argue the jurisdictional issue. Meanwhile, the original advertisement is off air, and the court has made clear that any reposting in its existing form will invite serious consequences.
For Gillette, the
—though limited to the original ad—represents a tactical win. For BSC, the battle continues, but the court's sharp words serve as a warning against using humor that crosses into mockery of the judicial system. As Justice Singh put it,
"If you think you are a good brand, why do you have to do this kind of a thing?"
