Comparative advertising and disparagement: Delhi HC found no prima facie basis to restrain the disputed health claims.

Comparative advertising is permissible so long as it does not slander, denigrate, or rubbish a rival product. The Delhi HC found that the impugned television and print advertisements promoted the defendant's product by highlighting higher Oryzanol content and related health benefits, without stating that the plaintiff's product was bad. On that basis, the court held the ads were not disparaging and were merely comparative in substance. The plaintiff also failed to show that the claims were so untruthful or unsubstantiated as to justify interlocutory restraint, so no prima facie case for interim injunction was made out.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff was entitled to interim injunction restraining the defendant from publishing or broadcasting the impugned comparative advertisements on the ground of disparagement and alleged false or misleading health claims.

Analysis: The advertisements were examined in the light of the settled principles governing comparative advertising. Comparative advertising is permissible so long as the advertiser does not slander, denigrate, or rubbish a rival product. The impugned television and print advertisements were found to promote the defendant's product by claiming a higher Oryzanol content and corresponding health benefits, without stating that the plaintiff's product was bad. The court held that the storyline and message were not disparaging and that the advertisements were, in substance, comparing the advantages of the defendant's goods. The plaintiff also failed to establish that the claims were so untruthful or unsubstantiated as to justify interim restraint, especially at the interlocutory stage.

Conclusion: No prima facie case for interim injunction was made out, and the applications were dismissed.

---