Delhi High Court Gives Bombay Shaving Company 1 Day To Revise Disputed Ad In Gillette's Disparagement Suit
Today, on 15 September, the Delhi High Court indicated that it would pass an order against Visage Lines Personal Care Private Limited, the parent company of Bombay Shaving Company, if the company failed to satisfactorily revise an advertisement that Gillette India alleged disparages its products.
Justice Jyoti Singh gave the company until the afternoon of 16 September to return with revised versions of the advertisement. The judge made clear that the company could either modify the advertisement or face an order from the Court. It orally remarked:
“Either you will invite an order, or you will come by grace.”
The hearing began with Bombay Shaving Company challenging the maintainability of Gillette's suit before the Intellectual Property Division.
Advocate Prithvi Singh, appearing for Bombay Shaving Company, argued that Gillette had not sought an injunction for trademark infringement or passing off and had instead sought relief only for disparagement.
He referred to Gillette's pleading that the advertisement did not contain any verifiable comparison with its product. He argued that the advertisement therefore did not constitute comparative advertising involving Gillette's trademark and that a different bench should hear the dispute.
Senior Advocate CM Lall, appearing for Gillette, submitted that the Intellectual Property Division could hear disputes involving disparagement of identifiable products and brands.
Lall also referred to earlier litigation between the two companies over a similar advertisement. He submitted that the earlier dispute had reached a Division Bench before the parties settled it. He said the Court had found that advertisement disparaging even though it did not expressly name Gillette, since viewers could identify the product depicted in it.
On the present advertisement, Gillette argued that the comic exchange involving an “uncle” character mocks the use of an older razor and portrays Gillette's products as outdated and inferior. Lall submitted that the advertisement followed the same pattern as the earlier campaign between the parties.
Bombay Shaving Company argued that the advertisement did not identify Gillette in any manner. It submitted that a third party had licensed the razor technology depicted in the advertisement and that the company intended the advertisement to be light-hearted rather than derogatory.
The Court questioned the repeated disputes between the companies over similar advertisements. “What pleasure are you getting out of doing this?” the Bench asked, later observing that such disputes “can't keep happening” every year.
As arguments on maintainability and the merits remained pending, Bombay Shaving Company sought one day to revise the advertisement and return with new iterations.
The High Court granted the request and listed the matter for 16 September at 2:30 pm.
For Gillette: Senior Counsel C.M. Lall, along with Advocates Ankur Sangal, Pragya Mishra, Saumya Bajpayee and Yashodhra Raina
For Bombay Shaving Company: Advocates Prithvi Singh, Vardaan Anand and Ruchika Yadav