False or misleading disparagement requires proof; claims of technological superiority alone do not establish unfair trade practice.

Claims that a prospectus and publicity material falsely or disparagingly promoted Form-Fill-Seal technology were rejected because the material did not prove the statements to be false or misleading. The Commission held that the Indian Pharmacopoeia sets minimum standards but does not bar improved manufacturing technology or a higher level of sterilisation. It also held that describing a process as modern, internationally accepted, or superior does not amount to unfair trade practice unless the claims are shown to be false or to denigrate a rival product. The complaint under section 36A(1)(x) therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent's prospectus and related publicity material, claiming that its Form-Fill-Seal technology was the latest, most modern, internationally standardised and superior to conventional IV-fluid manufacturing methods, amounted to a false, misleading or disparaging unfair trade practice under section 36A(1)(x) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969.

Analysis: The complaint rested essentially on the allegation that the respondent's assertions of technological superiority were intended to denigrate the conventional bottle-based method used by the complainants. The Commission held that the Indian Pharmacopoeia prescribes minimum standards, but does not prevent a manufacturer from adopting improved technology or achieving a higher level of sterilisation. The material placed before the Commission did not show that the respondent's claims about the FFS process being modern, internationally accepted, or superior were demonstrably false or misleading. On the contrary, the respondent had explained the process and supported its position by material showing worldwide acceptance and the asserted advantages of the technology. The Commission further held that mere self-praise or emphasis on technological advancement does not, by itself, amount to disparagement unless it runs down a rival product by false or misleading assertions.

Conclusion: The allegations of false, misleading and disparaging representation were not established, and the complaint under section 36A(1)(x) failed against the respondent.

---