Actionable disparagement found where advertisements crossed from puffery to indirect denigration of a rival whitener.

Advertisements that identify a rival product by appearance and price reference may cross the line from permissible puffery into actionable disparagement where they convey that the rival product is inferior or harmful. The court applied the principle that a trader may praise its own goods and claim superiority, but cannot denigrate a competitor's product, even indirectly. On the facts, the impugned advertisements were found to target the plaintiff's whitener as part of the class shown, and to suggest it would leave blue patches. The advertisements were therefore held to be disparaging, and the interim injunction was continued until disposal of the suit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned advertisements merely amounted to lawful puffery and comparison of the advertiser's product, or whether they directly or indirectly disparaged the plaintiff's product so as to justify continuation of the injunction.

Analysis: The advertisements were assessed as identifying the plaintiff's product by the container shown and the price reference, and as conveying that the plaintiff's whitener would leave blue patches and was therefore inferior. The legal principle applied was that a trader may praise his own goods and claim technological superiority, but cannot do so by denigrating a competitor's goods or suggesting that the competitor's product is bad or harmful. Even if the remarks were said to be directed at the class of all blue whiteners, they were held to encompass the plaintiff's product as well, since the plaintiff's product was part of that class and was identifiable from the advertisement's content and presentation.

Conclusion: The advertisements amounted to actionable disparagement of the plaintiff's product, not mere permissible puffery. The interim injunction was therefore confirmed and continued until disposal of the suit.

---