Interim injunction against disparaging advertising upheld where scientific claims were disputed and appellate interference was considered premature.

An appellate court should not interfere with a discretionary interim injunction restraining advertisements that claimed anti-bacterial superiority and indirectly disparaged a competitor's product. The restraint was expressly temporary and remained subject to the final decision on the injunction application after expert opinion. Because the dispute turned on technical rival scientific claims supported by expert material on both sides, and the appellant had itself suggested an expert panel, the order was treated as an interlocutory measure that called for no appellate interference at that stage. The merits of the rival claims were left unexamined to avoid prejudice in the preliminary proceeding, and the interim injunction was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate court should interfere with the Commission's discretionary interim injunction restraining the appellant from making advertisements claiming anti-bacterial superiority and indirect disparagement of the respondent's product.

Analysis: The injunction under challenge was expressly interim and pending final decision on the injunction application after expert opinion. The dispute involved technical questions on rival scientific claims, with both sides relying on expert material. The Commission had also proceeded on the basis that the appellant had itself suggested an expert panel. In these circumstances, the order was a discretionary interlocutory order, and interference in appeal at that stage was considered inappropriate. The court also declined to examine the merits of the rival claims lest prejudice be caused at the preliminary stage.

Conclusion: The interim injunction was not liable to be interfered with in appeal, and the appeal failed.

---