On September 17, 2026, India's men's grooming D2C brand Bombay Shaving Company (BSC) had its founder personally declare that it will continue its "Switch4" comparative ad campaign urging consumers to switch brands, while revising some of the expression amid an advertising dispute with Gillette (P&G). This case, being fought in the Delhi High Court, shows both the persuasive power and the legal risk that come with aggressive comparative advertising. For Japanese brands wanting to run aggressive ads in India, it is a vivid real-world example for thinking about where to draw the line on comparative advertising.
BSC's comparative campaign, "Switch4," is built around messaging about choice in razor blade cartridges. Gillette and BSC are fighting the matter in the Delhi High Court, and the original ad was withdrawn on the court's instruction. BSC submitted a revised version of the ad, but Gillette's counsel objected to its content. The case is being heard by Justice Jyoti Singh, and BSC has been given two weeks to file a response, with the next hearing scheduled for October 29, 2026. Founder Shantanu Deshpande stated that the aim of "Switch4" is to broaden choice for consumers, and declared he would not back down from defending innovation and consumers' right to choose.
In the razor and cartridge category, the standards for the handle and cartridge easily lead to lock-in, so a challenger needs to argue head-on for "switching from another company's product" to create room to break in. BSC, as a challenger born out of D2C, used breadth of choice as its weapon against the established incumbent. Comparative advertising can sharply show the difference a brand wants to convey, but the more strongly it names a rival brand, the more likely it is to invite a court battle. What surfaced this time is a typical form of that tension.
What this case shows is that the sharpness of comparative advertising and the litigation risk that comes with it are two sides of the same coin. The original ad was withdrawn on the court's instruction, and the revised version still faces objection from the other side. Even so, the founder called narrowing consumer choice anti-market and anti-consumer, and showed a stance of continuing the switching message itself. He adjusts the expression to fit the exchanges in court while keeping the core of the message unmoved. This posture of running offense and defense at the same time offers one model for handling comparative advertising in practice.
As far as reported by brand-focused media outlet Storyboard18, at the hearing Gillette's counsel objected to the content of the revised ad, and BSC was given two weeks to submit its response. Deshpande has repeatedly voiced his support for Switch4, innovation, and consumers' right to choose. The report is centered on the proceedings in court and the founder's statements, and does not convey figures showing what impact the dispute has had on sales or market share.
Japanese brands are often cautious about comparative advertising that names competitors in India. But there are situations where messaging that clearly shows a difference works well for a challenger seeking to be chosen. The key point is to tie comparative claims to verifiable facts and work out with legal counsel in advance exactly where the safe line lies. Moves to push a brand forward through aggressive messaging can be seen in a case of using ingredient labeling as a weapon to cut into multinational makers, an example of messaging that cuts into major players through ingredient labeling, and a men's D2C brand exploiting a gap by prioritizing profitability, a men's D2C brand exploiting a market gap by prioritizing profitability. Worth considering alongside a defensive move such as bringing a D2C coalition together through acquisition, a move to bring a D2C coalition together through acquisition, when designing a balance of offense and defense.
The technique of a challenger D2C brand naming and comparing itself to the incumbent produces strong differentiation in exchange for legal risk. The fact that a dispute like this is widely reported itself shows the industry both the limits and the potential of comparative advertising. As more brands build presence through aggressive messaging, consumers' criteria for choosing will shift too. Building a brand through pricing and the sharpness of its messaging, an example of pricing differentiated by using numbers as a weapon can be read on the same playing field as this idea.
Comparative advertising is a technique that puts sharpness and litigation risk on the same scale. Japanese brands considering aggressive messaging in India should line up verifiable evidence backing their comparative claims before debating whether to name a rival. As a next step, we recommend writing out the comparative statement your company wants to make, and preparing, one by one, the objective evidence to support it and the safe rephrasing that local legal counsel indicates.
RECENT
2026.09.24Bridgestone India’s 30th-anniversary film builds on the founder’s motto2026.09.24Flipkart’s move: putting the two meanings of "BBD" on Kolkata buses2026.09.24Veteran fertilizer maker KICL enters beverages with coconut water, starting in three South Indian states2026.09.24Pinit delivers saris in under 45 minutes, setting up a mirror and lighting at the customer’s home to choose fromCONTACT
Considering entering the Indian market?
Building on the developments on the ground covered in this article, we will suggest an approach that fits your products.
Book a free consultation →SOJAPAN
We support Japanese companies entering India, from market research through local partner development, test sales, and import.