The Delhi High Court has recorded that Visage Lines Personal Care, the parent company of Bombay Shaving Company, took down an impugned advertisement following an order dated September 16, 2026, in a commercial disparagement filed by Gillette India Limited. The Court also granted Gillette liberty to approach social media platforms and intermediaries for removal of the advertisement if it continues to be displayed.
Justice Jyoti Singh passed the order last week, concerning Gillette India’s suit against Visage Lines Personal Care Pvt. Ltd.
Visage Lines submitted that, without prejudice to the defendant’s rights and contentions, the impugned advertisement/storyboard had been taken down on September 16.
The defendant also informed the Court that a proposal for a revised advertisement had been shared with Gillette, but there had been no response.
Senior Advocate Chander M. Lall, appearing for Gillette, submitted that the revised advertisement proposal was not acceptable to the plaintiff as it contained material that was “obscene and derogatory”.
He sought liberty for Gillette to approach social media platforms and intermediaries for taking down the impugned advertisement, depending on the platforms on which it had been uploaded and continued to be displayed.
The Court took on record the defendant’s statement that the impugned advertisement had been taken down in furtherance of its September 16 order. It further observed that the statement would bind the defendant.
“Liberty as sought on behalf of the Plaintiff is granted,” the Court said, adding that in case of any further grievance on this aspect, Gillette would be at liberty to take recourse to appropriate legal remedies.
The Court granted Visage Lines two weeks to file its reply, with liberty to Gillette to file a rejoinder before the next date of hearing.
A competing brand need not always be named
The dispute raises a broader question around comparative advertising and whether an advertisement can be considered disparaging even when the competing brand is not expressly named.
“Where a particular competitor is not expressly named, courts examine whether that competitor or its product is nevertheless identifiable from its visual characteristics, product design, essential or distinctive features, colour combinations, packaging, get-up and other identifying cues,” said Nitin Sharma, partner, Saikrishna & Associates.
Shiv Sapra, partner, Kochhar & Co, said that “a brand need not be named to be identified”.
“Advertising history is full of clever, indirect jousting where consumers know precisely who is being spoken about without the rival’s name appearing prominently. The legal test is therefore one of identification, not nomenclature,” Sapra said.
According to him, courts would look at the advertisement as a whole and consider whether an ordinary consumer would reasonably identify the rival.
“The law permits wit and comparison; the difficulty begins when the joke becomes denigration,” he said.
“Comparative advertising is generally permissible where a brand says, in effect, ‘my product is better.’ The legal concern arises when the communication crosses over into suggesting that the competitor’s product is defective, inferior, obsolete, or otherwise unworthy,” said Tushar Gulati, associate partner, Dentons Link Legal.
Indian courts, he added, “have consistently focused on the net impression or ‘consumer takeaway’ rather than isolated words or frames.”
Prior litigations are context, not liability
This is not the first advertising dispute between Gillette and Bombay Shaving Company. Gillette had earlier challenged Bombay Shaving Company’s Sensi Smart 3 advertisements in 2024, alleging that they disparaged its Gillette Guard razor. That dispute was subsequently settled through mediation in February 2026.
The latest Switch4 campaign has now brought the two companies back before the Delhi High Court, with Gillette’s counsel also referring to the parties’ earlier litigation while taking the court through the advertisement’s storyboard. This raises the question of whether the history between the brands can have a bearing on how a subsequent advertisement is assessed.
Sharma said each advertisement has to be examined “independently and on its own merits”. The fact that two brands have previously been involved in litigation concerning comparative advertising would not, by itself, determine whether a subsequent advertisement is disparaging.
Sapra, however, noted that previous disputes can form part of the context in which consumers understand a later campaign.
“Advertising rivalries often develop their own vocabulary. Competing car makers and fast food chains have famously built campaigns that play off earlier exchanges. Prior litigation between two brands can similarly form part of the context in which a later advertisement is understood, particularly where it contains a knowing reference to the earlier dispute,” he said.
“History is context, not liability, each advertisement must ultimately stand or fall on the message it conveys,” Sapra said.
“If two brands have a well-known history of comparative campaigns against one another, references that may otherwise appear generic could potentially acquire greater significance in the eyes of consumers and, consequently, the court,” Gulati said.
Where does comparative advertising cross the line?
The legal challenge for brands is to distinguish legitimate comparison from an advertisement that denigrates a competing product.
“Some of the world’s most memorable advertising has come from brands taking playful shots at their rivals. Comparative advertising should not therefore become so sanitised that brands are afraid of humour, wit or competitive swagger,” Sapra said. “The legal line is between comparison and denigration.”
The legal risk increases, however, when an advertisement moves from establishing the superiority of one product to making a negative claim about the competing product.
“A brand can say, in substance, ‘we are better’. But it becomes a greater risk when the message is ‘the rival is bad’,” Sapra added.
“Brands should keep three key principles in mind: First, focus on substantiated superiority rather than denigration. Second, consider the advertisement as a whole. Courts analyse the overall commercial impression, including the tone, visuals, storyline, and likely consumer takeaway. Third, ensure compliance with the Trade Marks Act and established judicial principles on comparative advertising. Any reference to a competitor should be consistent with honest commercial practices and should not unfairly exploit or damage the reputation of the rival brand. Where a comparison is made, it should be factual, fair, and supported by credible evidence,” Gulati concluded.
The matter has been listed for hearing on November 6, 2026.
Gillette was represented by Senior Counsel C.M. Lal, along with Ankur Sangal, Pragya Mishra, Saumya Bajpayee and Yashodhra Raina of Aerion Legal.
Bombay Shaving Company was represented by Prathvi Singh of Fidus Law Chambers.
