Gillette vs Bombay Shaving Co: Where does comparative advertising end & belittling begin?

Pepsi and Coca-Cola have spent decades taking digs at each other in advertising. Samsung and Apple have built an entire marketing vocabulary around competitive jabs, from product comparisons to tongue-in-cheek references to each other. Comparative advertising, after all, is not unusual in the advertising world. 

The legal question is where a brand draws the line between saying its product is better and suggesting that a rival’s product is bad, inferior or outdated.

That question is now back before the Delhi High Court in the latest advertising dispute between Gillette India and Bombay Shaving Company (BSC). On September 16, Justice Jyoti Singh recorded BSC’s statement that it would take down the disputed Switch4 advertisement from channels under its control and share a proposal for revised advertisements with Gillette. The statement was made without BSC admitting the alleged disparagement and without prejudice to its rights and contentions. The matter has been listed for September 17.

Read earlier e4m report on the face off

The Delhi high court ordered Bombay Shaving Company to take down the advertisement by Wednesday evening after Gillette India challenged the campaign. 

The dispute concerns BSC’s Switch4 campaign, which pitches its four-blade cartridge against the traditional three-blade razor format. Gillette has alleged that, although its name is not expressly used, the advertisement makes its products identifiable and portrays them as outdated or inferior. The campaign also used a courtroom setting and references to the earlier legal battle between the two companies, bringing the advertising rivalry directly into the legal setting. The Delhi High Court, during the hearing, objected to the courtroom treatment, with Justice Jyoti Singh describing the depiction as an “outright mockery” of the Court, according to reports from the hearing.

For the advertising industry, however, the larger question goes beyond the courtroom sequence: how far can brands push a competitor-led creative before a comparative advertisement becomes a case of disparagement?

e4m reached out to both Gillette India and Bombay Shaving Company for their comments but are yet to receive responses.

‘My product is better’ is not the same as ‘your product is bad’

The distinction is not new. In the long-running Pepsi-Coca-Cola advertising litigation, the Delhi High Court examined whether Coca-Cola’s advertising merely amounted to permissible puffery or crossed into denigration of Pepsi. The court recognised that a brand can say its product is better than a rival’s, but held that comparative advertising cannot be used to discredit or denigrate the competitor’s product.

The same principle continues to inform how courts examine advertising disputes. Tushar Gulati, Associate Partner, Dentons Link Legal, said the law gives brands room to compare products and even use humour, but the nature of the message becomes critical when the rival itself becomes the subject of ridicule.

“The law does not prohibit brands from taking a direct shot at their competitors. In fact, comparative advertising is a legitimate part of commercial speech. What the law does not permit is crossing from ‘my product is better’ to ‘your product is bad’, particularly through a misleading or derogatory representation.”

Gulati pointed to the Pepsi-Coca-Cola litigation as an example of the distinction between puffery and disparagement. He also noted that humour or poking fun at a rival does not automatically make an advertisement unlawful, but that protection does not extend to denigrating the rival’s product.

That distinction becomes particularly relevant in the Gillette-BSC dispute because the question is not simply whether one razor can be compared with another. It is also whether the overall creative treatment communicates something more about the competing product.

The competitor need not always be named

The absence of a competitor’s name is not necessarily the end of the inquiry. Courts have previously examined whether a product or brand can be identified from the visual treatment, context and surrounding circumstances.

In the Pepsi-Coca-Cola case, for instance, the court found that the product being referred to could be identified despite the advertisement not using Pepsi’s name directly. More recently, courts have also considered the overall impression created by an advertisement rather than looking only at whether a competitor’s trademark appears on screen.

This is significant for the Switch4 dispute because Gillette’s case is that the advertisement indirectly identifies its products and presents them as an older or inferior choice. BSC, on the other hand, has maintained that Gillette is not named and that the campaign is a humorous comparison around razor technology. The court has not, in the September 16 order, recorded a final finding on whether the advertisement amounts to disparagement. Instead, it recorded BSC’s undertaking to remove the existing version and submit a revised proposal.

Sucheta Roy, Principal Associate, Khaitan & Co., said the legal framework is relatively clear, even though its application can become fact-specific.

“The law on comparative advertising is fairly straightforward: comparing products is allowed, but tearing down a competitor’s product is not. Courts usually look at the advertiser’s intent, the overall impression created by the advertisement, and how the comparison is made. The aim should be to highlight one’s own product, not to take a dig at a competitor.”

Roy added that humour can also be permissible in advertising. She cited the Delhi High Court’s 2025 ruling involving Royal Challengers Bengaluru and Uber, where the court declined to restrain an advertisement that it viewed in the context of light-hearted humour.

“A bit of humour is also fine, for instance the Delhi High Court permitted this in the Royal Challengers Bangalore–Uber dispute. That said, where the parties have a history of litigation, as they do here, the advertiser needs to be more careful. A court may view repeated advertisements mocking a competitor as an attempt to denigrate their product, particularly against that background.”

Prathap Suthan, Managing Partner & Chief Creative Officer, Bang In The Middle said a brand may win attention online while simultaneously creating another point of contention in court. He also cautioned against giving the opposing counsel additional material to rely on during the proceedings.

“Why take that chance? Why give the opposing counsel fresh ammunition to walk into court with? Why put another piece of your behaviour in front of the very person who will decide what happens next?”

For Suthan, once the dispute has moved into the legal system, the advertising battle should take a back seat until the court proceedings are concluded.

When the history between brands becomes part of the creative

The Gillette-BSC dispute is not taking place in isolation. The two companies had already been involved in an advertising dispute over BSC’s Sensi Smart 3 campaign. That matter was subsequently settled in mediation in February 2026. The latest Switch4 campaign has therefore brought the two brands back before the Delhi High Court within months of the earlier dispute being settled.

For lawyers, that history changes the context in which a new campaign is assessed, even though it does not by itself establish that a subsequent advertisement is unlawful.

Gulati said the previous dispute means the advertiser is aware of the legal sensitivities surrounding the competing brands.

“Once two competing brands have already fought an advertising battle in court, they cannot be oblivious to the legal sensitivities surrounding their next campaign. Comparative advertising is legitimate, but a previous dispute means the parties and particularly the advertiser know exactly where the fault lines lie.”

According to him, the central issue is whether the campaign remains a product comparison or moves into portraying the competitor itself as inferior.

“The real question is not whether BSC can compare itself with Gillette, but whether the comparison remains a comparison or becomes a deliberate attempt to portray the competitor as inferior or outdated. That distinction can have both legal and reputational consequences.”

Why the courtroom treatment has added another layer

The latest order also needs to be read against what happened during the September 16 hearing. The court’s immediate concern, as reflected in reports from the hearing, extended to the use of a fictional courtroom, judge and legal proceedings in a razor advertisement. The court directed the removal of the existing version, while BSC agreed to take it down and share revised advertisements with Gillette.

Madhu Gadodia, Deputy Managing Partner, Naik Naik & Co., said the immediate proceedings concern BSC’s Switch4 advertisement and Gillette’s challenge to the campaign. She also highlighted the significance of the court requiring the advertisement to be revised rather than allowing the existing version to continue.

“The matter concerns a Bombay Shaving Company (BSC) advertisement for its Switch4 razor, which uses a courtroom setting and references that appear to draw on its earlier dispute with Gillette. Gillette challenged the advertisement, arguing that it went beyond permissible comparative advertising and amounted to disparagement, particularly because the campaign was built around the history of the earlier litigation between the two brands.”

Gadodia said the Delhi High Court directed BSC to take down the existing version and revise the advertisement, with the matter coming up again on September 17.

“The Delhi High Court directed BSC to take down the existing version and revise the advertisement, expressing particular concern that the portrayal of court proceedings amounted to an ‘outright mockery’ of the Court. BSC agreed to remove the courtroom portions, while maintaining that the takedown was without prejudice to its legal rights and without admitting Gillette’s allegation of disparagement.”

The industry takeaway: How far can brands push?

The tension is not between comparative advertising and no comparative advertising. Brands have long used competitors as reference points to establish product superiority. The legal scrutiny comes in when the comparison allegedly creates a negative representation of the rival rather than simply a positive representation of the advertiser’s own product.

The Delhi High Court has previously laid down factors including the intent of the commercial, the manner in which it is presented, the storyline and the message conveyed to the viewer. It has also held that disguising a competing product does not necessarily avoid scrutiny if the product remains identifiable from its appearance and surrounding circumstances.

That leaves advertisers with a more nuanced question than simply whether they can name a competitor, show a competing product or make a joke about it. The question is what the audience is ultimately left with: a reason to choose the advertiser’s product, or a message that the competitor’s product itself is inferior.

And in the Gillette-BSC case, the next version of the Switch4 advertisement may provide the clearest answer yet on where that line is drawn when a brand rivalry has already been through the courts.