Gillette vs Bombay Shaving Co: BSC Takes Down Disparaging Ad As Ordered By Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Thursday recorded that Bombay Shaving Company (BSC) has complied with an earlier direction to pull down its "Switch4" advertisement in Gillette India's disparagement suit, even as it declined to immediately stop a fresh advertisement the company has since released.

The development came on Thursday before Justice Jyoti Singh, a day after the court had strongly criticised BSC for depicting a courtroom and a judge in the advertisement, calling it an "outright mockery" of the court.

Justice Jyoti Singh made clear that any objection to the new advertisement would have to be raised as a proper legal challenge, not decided on the spot. "I am not going to permit, you do what you have to. If there is a challenge, there will be a challenge," she remarked orally, declining Gillette's plea for an immediate restraint.

Advocate Prithvi Singh, appearing for BSC, told the court that the company had fully complied with its undertaking, removing every reference to the court and the litigation from the original advertisement, and that a new campaign had since gone live. He offered to file a reply within a day so the new advertisement dispute could be argued separately.

Gillette's counsel, Senior Advocate Chander M. Lall, objected strongly to the new advertisement too, describing it as obscene and urging the court to act immediately. He argued that letting the campaign continue unchecked would effectively give it "its stamp of approval to this obscenity."

BSC's side pushed back, arguing that the new advertisement made no reference to Gillette and did not disparage it in any way, so there was no basis for a restraint in this suit, though Gillette could explore other remedies separately if it found the content objectionable on other grounds.

The court chose not to examine the new advertisement at this stage, leaving that question to be argued once BSC files its reply. BSC was granted two weeks to do so, with Gillette's rejoinder due before the next date. The court also noted that a revised version of the original advertisement, shared by BSC per its earlier undertaking, has still not been accepted by Gillette.

Background

The dispute stems from a suit filed by Gillette India Limited against Visage Lines Personal Care Private Limited, BSC's parent, alleging that the Switch4 campaign disparaged its products. The suit, registered on September 15, was granted exemption from pre-institution mediation on grounds of urgency, with the court citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi and a Delhi High Court Division Bench decision in Chandra Kishore Chaurasia v. RA Perfumery Works.

At Wednesday's hearing, Justice Singh had taken strong exception to the advertisement's courtroom setting, questioning why a company would use a court backdrop to sell razors. "I don't see any reason why anyone will be advertising in a court setting like this," she observed, rejecting BSC's explanation that the scene was meant only to add humour. The court also declined a disclaimer BSC had proposed, stating the razor featured was compatible with handles from multiple brands, dismissing the changes as "little cosmetic dressing."

Gillette's counsel, Senior Advocate Chander M. Lall, also flagged a social media post by BSC's promoter celebrating media coverage of the litigation. Justice Singh ultimately warned the company against reposting the advertisement in its existing form: "One more time it goes up, you will be out. It's in my hand now."

On record, BSC's counsel undertook that the impugned advertisement and storyboard would be taken down from all channels under the company's control during the course of the day, with a revised proposal to follow.

The Switch4 campaign had framed its contest as "Bombay Shaving Company v. Uncle Razor," pitching a four-blade cartridge as a replacement for popular three-blade handles, without naming Gillette directly. Gillette has argued that given its roughly 97 per cent share of the razor market, any campaign targeting an unnamed rival effectively targets Gillette.

Case Title: Gillette India Limited v. Visage Lines Personal Care Private Limited

Date of Hearing: September 17, 2026

Bench: Justice Jyoti Singh