Bombay Shaving Co. Agrees To Take Down Allegedly Disparaging Ad After Delhi HC Calls It 'Mockery Of Court'

Bombay Shaving Company on Wednesday agreed to take down an advertisement featuring a mock courtroom setting and a judge character after the Delhi High Court questioned the company over what it described as “outright mockery” of the court.

Justice Jyoti Singh said, “I don't know what your client's definition of mockery is if this is not mocking the court,” after counsel for Bombay Shaving Company sought to defend the courtroom sequence.

The court added, “Please don't even stand to defend this.”

The dispute is part of a disparagement suit filed by Gillette India against Visage Lines Personal Care, the parent company of Bombay Shaving Company, over an advertisement that Gillette claims refers to its razors.

At Tuesday's hearing, the court had asked Bombay Shaving Company to make changes to the disputed advertisement. When the matter came up on Wednesday, counsel for Bombay Shaving Company, Advocate Prithvi Singh, took the court through the changes made.

Singh said the company had removed a frame referring to a legal notice and changed the shape and design of the razor shown in the advertisement. He also proposed adding a disclaimer stating that the blade shown in the advertisement was compatible with multiple third-party razor handles.

The court was unconvinced by the disclaimer.

When Singh explained that the disclaimer would clarify that the blade could be used with handles of multiple other brands, the judge said, “I don't think so.”

The court also questioned the advertisement's references to the age of the product.

“If you think you are a good brand, why do you have to do this kind of a thing, I don't understand,” Justice Singh said.

The court then turned to the courtroom setting in the advertisement.

Gillette's counsel, Senior Advocate CM Lall, took the court through the storyboard and argued that the advertisement was set against the backdrop of court proceedings and referred to the earlier litigation between the parties.

The judge questioned why a courtroom setting had been used in an advertisement for razors.

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

When Singh said the company was not trying to imply anything and was only trying to make the advertisement humorous, the judge responded, “It's in a court setting. What are you trying to imply?”

Singh then said the company had not intended to convey anything about the litigation. The court, however, questioned the depiction of the judge in the advertisement.

“Do you think they are doing with this razor issue in a court? ... The judge is shown grasping at it. What else is mockery?” the judge said.

The court rejected the changes made to the advertisement, saying, “I think you should take down all of this property because I think you just seem to have done some little cosmetic dressing here and there. It's not working out.”

The judge later said, “I think it's outright mockery.”

Gillette also raised a social media post concerning the litigation. Its counsel pointed out that Shantanu Deshpande, identified during the hearing as the promoter of the defendant, had celebrated a post-reporting that the company had been taken to court.

“He celebrates the fact that he has been taken to court,” Gillette's counsel said. The counsel clarified that the post itself was by Best Media Info and that Deshpande had celebrated the post.

The court subsequently pressed Bombay Shaving Company's counsel to decide whether the advertisement would be taken down.

“You are going to take this all off or I am going to direct,” the judge said.

Singh offered to remove the courtroom proceedings from the advertisement and make the other changes discussed during the hearing. The court, however, said, “But I still don't understand. It's very confusing. So it's better that you take all of them down right now.”

The court further remarked, “I am telling you I am unhappy. I am most unhappy.”

After further submissions, Singh said, on instructions, that the company would take down the impugned advertisement from its official channels and other channels under its control, without prejudice to its rights. He also agreed to share a proposal for a revised advertisement with Gillette later that evening.

The court recorded the undertaking, with Singh committing that the defendant would take down the impugned advertisement from pages one to 28 of the storyboard filed with the plaintiff's documents. The court also recorded that a proposal for a revised advertisement would be shared with Gillette's advocate on record by a reasonable time that night.

The court warned the company against putting the advertisement back online in its existing form.

“One more time it goes up, you will be out. It's in my hand now,” the judge said.

The court further recorded that the advertisement was being taken down without prejudice to the defendant's rights.

The matter has been listed for hearing tomorrow morning.

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