Gillette and Bombay Shaving Company face off again over Switch4 ad

The advertising rivalry between Gillette India and Bombay Shaving Company (BSC) has returned to the Delhi High Court, with Gillette challenging BSC’s latest Switch4 razor campaign. 

The dispute concerns whether the advertisement amounts to disparagement of Gillette and if the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the High Court’s Intellectual Property Division (IPD).

The case was heard by Justice Jyoti Singh, who questioned whether a standalone claim of disparagement could be brought before the IPD without a direct connection to intellectual property rights or a trademark.

During the hearing, the court also examined how Gillette was identified in the advertisement and whether the dispute should be treated as one involving comparative advertising or disparagement.

The Switch4 campaign, featuring actor Gajraj Rao, questions the conventional three-blade razor and cartridge model and promotes BSC’s four-blade cartridge as an alternative for consumers who already own three-blade razor handles.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Gajraj Rao (@gajrajrao)

Gillette’s counsel argued that the advertisement was intended to convey that Gillette and its products were “bad and outdated”. According to the submissions, the campaign was not simply making a comparison between two products but was allegedly portraying the competing brand and its products in a negative manner.

The court, however, sought clarity on the connection between the alleged disparagement and intellectual property rights. Justice Singh also questioned whether referring to a brand in an advertisement was sufficient to bring an advertising dispute within the IPD.

The hearing also brought up an earlier advertising dispute between the two companies. The court asked counsel to place the earlier advertisement before it and explain its relevance to the current proceedings.

Justice Singh questioned whether Gillette had been directly identified in that advertisement. When counsel pointed to a razor shown in the communication, the court questioned whether the depiction of a razor alone could establish that the advertisement was aimed at Gillette.

The court also sought clarity on the pleadings and the basis on which the plaintiff was claiming an intellectual property connection.

The latest dispute comes against the backdrop of previous legal disagreements involving Bombay Shaving Company’s advertising. In 2025, Philips approached the Delhi High Court over a BSC social media advertisement comparing its OmniBlade with Philips OneBlade. BSC subsequently agreed to remove the reel.

The current proceedings will next be heard on September 16 at 2:30 pm. The court is expected to hear further submissions on whether the alleged disparagement has a sufficient connection with intellectual property rights and whether the matter falls within the IPD’s jurisdiction.