Delhi High Court: In a case concerning the alleged violation of an undertaking given to the Court in relation to an advertisement for Bombay Shaving Company’s Switch4 razor, a Single Judge Bench of A.J. Bhambhani, J., prima facie found that the purportedly “revised” advertisement, concerning Gillette’s products, had no perceptible difference in its impact from the original advertisement. While considering the plaintiff’s application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), the Court directed Bombay Shaving Company not to run the revised advertisement till the next date of hearing and directed that the plaintiff’s interim injunction application be heard along with the contempt application.
The Court, in an application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A read with Section 151 CPC, considered the plaintiff’s allegation that the defendant had violated its undertaking, recorded in orders dated 16 September 2026 and 17 September 2026, by issuing a purportedly “revised” advertisement containing essentially the same offending content. The defendant contended that the revised advertisement was a re-worked version which removed the allegedly offending portions and was not disparaging of the plaintiff in law. The Court issued notice and directed the defendant to file its reply within one week, with rejoinder, if any, to be filed before the next date. The Court also directed that the plaintiff’s interim injunction application, I.A. No. 25193/2026, be taken up along with the present application.
On a first blush of viewing the revised advertisement, the Court was of the prima facie view that “there is no perceptible difference in the impact of the ‘revised’ advertisement as compared to the ‘original’ advertisement”. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, the defendant was directed not to run the revised advertisement. The applications were directed to be taken up on 5 October 2026, while the date of 7 October 2026 before the learned Joint Registrar was directed to remain as is.
Previous Order: Delhi High Court Rejects Bombay Shaving Switch4 Ad in Gillette Case | SCC Times
[Gillette India Ltd. v. Visage Lines Personal Care (P) Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 7466, decided on 21-9-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Chander M. Lall, Senior Advocate with Ankur Sangal, Pragya Mishra, Saumya Bajpai, Yashodhara Raina, A. Mehar and Swastik Sant Advocates
For the Defendants: Tanya Varma, Prithvi Singh, Vardaan Anand and Ruchika Yadav, Advocates.
