Comparative advertising cannot denigrate a rival's product, while copying the essential features of a commercial can infringe copyright.

Comparative advertising is permissible only if it stays within puffery and does not denigrate a rival's product; the commercials here were found to cross that line by mocking the competing drink and implying inferiority, so disparagement was made out. Trademark infringement was not established because the slogan and globe device were used in a mocking or parodying manner, not as an origin indicator or use in trade for the respondent's goods. Copyright infringement was made out where the later commercial reproduced the theme, sequence, and essential elements of the earlier advertisement, amounting to a substantial and material taking rather than mere inspiration. Relief was therefore limited to the impugned commercials and the roller coaster version in its existing form.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned television commercials disparaged the appellant's product in the course of comparative advertising. (ii) Whether the use of the slogan and globe device amounted to infringement of the appellant's trademark and copyright. (iii) Whether the respondent's roller coaster commercial copied a substantial and material part of the appellant's copyrighted advertisement.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned television commercials disparaged the appellant's product in the course of comparative advertising.

Analysis: Comparative advertising is permissible only so long as it remains within the limits of puffery and does not denigrate the rival product. The commercials repeatedly projected the appellant's drink as a sweet drink meant for children, mocked the preference for it, and conveyed that choosing it was a wrong choice. The visual presentation, the embarrassment shown, and the repeated insinuation that the appellant's product was inferior were held to go beyond mere comparison and to amount to disparagement.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the appellant and against the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the use of the slogan and globe device amounted to infringement of the appellant's trademark and copyright.

Analysis: A registered mark is infringed only when it is used in the course of trade in a manner likely to be taken as use of a trademark for the respondent's goods. The impugned advertisement did not use the appellant's mark as the origin indicator of the respondent's goods. The slogan was used in a mocking or parodying manner, but not as use of the appellant's mark in trade. On that footing, the claim of trademark infringement was not made out on the material before the Court.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant insofar as trademark and slogan infringement was concerned.

Issue (iii): Whether the respondent's roller coaster commercial copied a substantial and material part of the appellant's copyrighted advertisement.

Analysis: Copyright protection extends to the work and a substantial part of it. On a prima facie comparison, the respondent's roller coaster commercial reproduced the theme, sequence, and essential elements of the appellant's commercial, with similar presentation and appearance, amounting to more than a mere idea or inspiration. The work was treated as a literal imitation with minor variations.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the appellant and against the respondent.

Final Conclusion: Interim restraint was warranted only to the limited extent of the commercials annexed to the plaint and the roller coaster commercial in its existing form; the appeal succeeded only partly.

Ratio Decidendi: Comparative advertising is lawful only if it does not denigrate the rival's goods, and copyright infringement may be made out where the later work reproduces the substantial and material features of the earlier commercial rather than merely the underlying idea.

---