Delhi High Court: In a case concerning the alleged disparagement of Gillette’s products through an advertisement for Bombay Shaving Company’s Switch4 razor, a Single Judge Bench of Jyoti Singh, J., took strong exception to the portrayal of Court proceedings in the impugned advertisement. The Court described the portrayal as an “outright mockery” of the Court, questioned the defendant’s continued use of such a promotional approach, and directed Bombay Shaving Company to take down the impugned advertisement from all platforms controlled by it.
In a suit filed by Procter & Gamble-owned Gillette against Bombay Shaving Company, the Court took strong exception to a recently released advertisement for the latter’s Switch4 razor, alleging that the advertisement not only disparaged Gillette’s products but also made a mockery of Court proceedings.
After viewing the advertisement, the Court observed that the campaign was objectionable and took strong exception to its portrayal of Court proceedings, describing it as an “outright mockery” of the Court. The Court also questioned the defendant’s continued use of such a promotional approach in its advertising campaigns.
Taking note of the defendant’s past conduct, the Court observed that, instead of disparaging competing products, the defendant could focus on promoting the merits of its own products. During the proceedings, counsel for the defendant, on instructions, submitted that, without admitting the alleged disparagement and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the defendant, the impugned advertisement/storyboard would be taken down from the channels under the control of the defendant during the course of the day. The defendant further undertook to share a proposal with the plaintiff for revised advertisements.
On 17 September 2026, Bombay Shaving proposed an amended advertisement, which was not agreeable by the Court and Gillette.
[Gillette India Ltd. v. Visage Lines Personal Care (P) Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 7220, decided on 17-9-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Chander M. Lall, Senior Advocate with Ankur Sangal, Pragya Mishra, Saumya Bajpai, Yashodhara Raina and Annanya Mehan, Advocates
For the Defendants: Prithvi Singh, Vardaan Anand and Ruchika Yadav, Advocates.
