Misleading superiority claims in toothpaste advertising can be restrained when they create a false consumer impression.

A television commercial claiming that a toothpaste was the only product containing all three ingredients and the first all-round protection toothpaste was treated as a misleading representation and an unfair trade practice. Commercial speech is protected, but that protection is limited where advertisements convey false or unsupported factual superiority claims. The Court distinguished permissible puffery from statements likely to create a false consumer impression, and considered public interest and consumer protection relevant to interim relief. On the materials placed before it, the exclusivity and priority claims lacked scientific support and were restrained, while the matter was not treated as actionable disparagement of the rival product.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned television commercial, by claiming that the product was the only toothpaste containing all three ingredients and the first all round protection toothpaste, amounted to a misleading representation and an unfair trade practice warranting interim restraint.

Analysis: The advertisement projected factual superiority claims which were not supported by the respondent's own stand or by any scientific basis placed before the Court. A commercial advertisement enjoys protection as commercial speech, but that protection is subject to reasonable restrictions where the advertisement is false or misleading. The relevant statutory framework recognises false representations about quality, composition and usefulness as unfair trade practice. The Court distinguished mere puffery from claims that convey a false impression to consumers, and held that public interest and consumer protection are material considerations in deciding interim relief. On the materials before it, the claims regarding exclusivity and priority were found to be misleading, though the Court was not persuaded to characterise the matter as actionable disparagement of the rival's goods.

Conclusion: The claims of being the "only" and "first" toothpaste were held to constitute misleading representations and an unfair trade practice, and interim injunction was granted restraining the use of those words in the offending advertisement in the impugned manner.

---