Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the impugned advertisement amounted to prima facie disparagement or malicious falsehood warranting an interim injunction against its telecast.
Analysis: The governing principles permit puffery and comparative advertising so long as the advertiser does not denigrate a rival's goods. Generic disparagement may be actionable, but an interim injunction requires a prima facie showing that the advertisement targets the rival's product and crosses the line into slander of goods or malicious falsehood. On the facts, the advertisement promoted the defendant's mosquito repellant cream by emphasising natural additives and reduced risk of rashes and allergy. It did not make a direct reference to the plaintiff's product, and the court found that the impugned message was at most an idle boast or puffery. The material on record did not establish that the advertisement prima facie disparaged the plaintiff's goods or clearly fell within malicious falsehood.
Conclusion: No prima facie case for interim injunction was made out, and the application was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Comparative advertising and puffery are permissible, and an interim injunction against an advertisement will issue only where the impugned statement prima facie amounts to disparagement or malicious falsehood by denigrating the rival's goods.