Disparagement in advertising: commercial crossed from puffery to denigration of Chayawanprash, warranting temporary injunction.

A television commercial crossed the line from permissible puffery into actionable disparagement by suggesting that Chayawanprash should not be consumed in summer and that Amritprash was the preferable substitute. The Delhi HC held that even without naming the plaintiff's brand, the message was directed against the generic class of Chayawanprash and implied that such products were not good for health in summer. A trader may promote its own goods, but it cannot denigrate a competitor's goods or the class to which they belong. Temporary injunction was granted restraining telecast of the impugned commercial during the suit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned television commercial disparaged the plaintiff's product so as to justify grant of a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The commercial did not merely praise the defendant's product; it conveyed that Chayawanprash should not be consumed during the summer months and that Amritprash was the preferable substitute. Even without an express reference to the plaintiff's brand, the statement was directed against the generic class of Chayawanprash and carried an insinuation that such products were not good for health in summer. A trader may honestly puff its own goods, but it cannot denigrate a competitor's goods or the class to which they belong. The court found that the advertisement crossed the boundary between permissible puffery and actionable disparagement.

Conclusion: The advertisement was held to be disparaging, and a temporary injunction was granted restraining telecast of the impugned commercial during the pendency of the suit.

---