Gillette-BSC Switch4 dispute: Revised ad faces fresh challenge

The legal dispute between Gillette India and Bombay Shaving Company (BSC) over its Switch4 razor campaign has entered a new phase, with the Delhi High Court declining to approve BSC’s revised advertisement and leaving it open for Gillette to challenge the new creative before the appropriate forum.

The development follows BSC’s compliance with the Court’s September 16 direction to remove the original advertisement from platforms and channels under its control. BSC subsequently shared a revised version with Gillette after removing the courtroom sequence and references to the rival brand.

Gillette continued to raise objections to the revised creative, including on grounds of obscenity, disparagement and compliance with the applicable advertising code. The court did not adjudicate these fresh objections during Thursday’s hearing.

Justice Jyoti Singh said, “If the plaintiff has any objection to the revised advertisement, it is open to it to challenge the same before the appropriate forum.”

The revised creative therefore remains outside the scope of the Court’s approval, with Gillette free to pursue its objections separately.

Influencer posts to follow a different route

The hearing also addressed the circulation of the disputed advertisement through influencers and other third-party accounts.

Gillette raised concerns over social media posts carrying or discussing the impugned creative. Rather than issuing a blanket direction to platforms, the Court gave Gillette liberty to approach the concerned intermediaries and bring the posts to their notice.

The intermediaries can then take appropriate action in accordance with their respective policies. 

The court also left Gillette free to approach it again if necessary.

This separates the treatment of BSC’s own advertising channels from third-party amplification. While the advertiser has undertaken to remove the original creative from channels under its control, posts published independently by influencers will have to be taken up with the respective platforms.

The issue is particularly relevant to creator-led campaigns, where a brand’s advertisement can continue to circulate through multiple accounts even after the original campaign material has been withdrawn.

Court objects to original courtroom treatment

The latest hearing follows the court’s September 16 consideration of BSC’s proposed changes to the original Switch4 advertisement.

The campaign, featuring actor Gajraj Rao, promotes a four-blade cartridge that can be fitted onto existing three-blade razor handles. Gillette has alleged that the advertisement, although it does not expressly name the company, makes its products identifiable and portrays them as outdated or inferior.

The original creative included a fictional courtroom, judge and legal proceedings. Justice Singh took strong exception to the depiction, questioning the use of a court setting in a razor advertisement.

“I don't see any reason why anyone will be advertising in a court setting like this,” the Court observed.

The Court also questioned BSC’s characterisation of the treatment as humour, with Justice Singh remarking, “I don't know what your client's definition of mockery is if this is not mocking the court.”

The Court described the portrayal as an “outright mockery” of the Court and found BSC’s proposed changes insufficient.

Revised creative and next steps

BSC’s counsel told the Court that the new version had removed “the entire courtroom setting” as well as “all references to the plaintiff”.

BSC also argued that if the revised advertisement contained any disparaging reference to Gillette, the company could challenge it, but maintained that the present version did not contain such a reference.

Gillette, meanwhile, retained its objections to the revised creative. The Court left those issues for the appropriate forum rather than deciding them in the present proceedings.

The commercial suit remains pending. BSC has been given time to file its reply, following which Gillette may file a rejoinder. The matter is next listed in October.