Truthful comparative advertising and correction of public misconception do not amount to actionable disparagement; injunction refused.
A truthful television commercial stating that the plaintiff's soap was not an antiseptic soap was treated as a correction of a mistaken public perception, not actionable disparagement; truth operated as a complete defence to injunctive relief. The plaintiff's claim for injunction was also undermined by its failure to claim damages, suppression of material facts including an earlier regulatory complaint, delay, and the availability of an equally efficacious remedy before the MRTP Commission. On those grounds, equitable relief was refused and the suit was dismissed.
Issues: (i) Whether a television commercial that truthfully highlights that the plaintiff's soap is not an antiseptic soap amounts to disparagement and warrants injunction. (ii) Whether the suit for injunction was barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, suppression of material facts, delay and the availability of an equally efficacious alternative remedy.
Issue (i): Whether a television commercial that truthfully highlights that the plaintiff's soap is not an antiseptic soap amounts to disparagement and warrants injunction.
Analysis: The relief sought was founded on alleged disparagement of the plaintiff's goods. The commercial did not contain a false statement about the defendant's product in the sense required for injurious falsehood or slander of goods. Instead, it drew attention to the public's mistaken impression about the plaintiff's soap and corrected that impression. The plaintiff itself pleaded that its soap was perceived as antiseptic, yet the material showed that it was marketed as a toilet soap and not as an antiseptic soap. On that footing, the statement complained of was treated as substantially truthful, and truth was applied as a complete defence to the claim for injunctive relief.
Conclusion: The allegation of disparagement was rejected and no injunction could be granted on that basis.
Issue (ii): Whether the suit for injunction was barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, suppression of material facts, delay and the availability of an equally efficacious alternative remedy.
Analysis: The plaintiff had not claimed damages and had sought only an injunction, which was held vulnerable in view of the earlier omission of the primary relief. The plaintiff had also suppressed material facts, including its unsuccessful complaint before the advertising regulator, and had approached the Court after delay. In addition, Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act was applied on the footing that an equally efficacious remedy was available before the MRTP Commission. These circumstances were held to disentitle the plaintiff to discretionary equitable relief.
Conclusion: The suit was held barred and the plaintiff was not entitled to injunctive relief.
Final Conclusion: The Court refused equitable protection against the impugned advertisement and dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had not established a sustainable case for injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: A truthful commercial that corrects a mistaken public perception about a rival product does not amount to actionable disparagement, and injunctive relief will also be refused where the claimant is disentitled by suppression, delay, or the availability of an equally efficacious alternative remedy.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
