Comparative advertising and disparagement: puffery within permissible limits did not justify an interim injunction.
Disparagement in advertising was treated as a form of malicious falsehood requiring an untrue statement, malice and special damage, while commercial speech remained protected under Article 19(1)(a) subject to the prohibition on false, misleading, unfair or deceptive advertising. Comparative advertising was held permissible so long as it did not denigrate a rival product. On the facts, the impugned advertisement was not found to specifically or generally target the plaintiff, and its visual message was held to remain within permissible product puffery. The Court therefore found no prima facie serious imputation of defect to a reasonable consumer and refused interim injunction.
Issues: Whether the impugned advertisement prima facie amounted to disparagement of the plaintiff's product so as to justify an interim injunction.
Analysis: The law on disparagement was treated as an aspect of malicious falsehood, requiring an untrue statement, malice, and special damage. Commercial speech in advertising was recognised as protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, subject to the limitation that an advertisement must not be false, misleading, unfair or deceptive. Comparative advertising was held permissible so long as it did not denigrate a rival product. Applying that standard, the advertisement was found not to specifically or even generically target the plaintiff, and the visual message was held to remain within the permissible grey areas of product puffery. The Court also noted that the differences in quantity were marginal and that the advertisement, at the interlocutory stage, could not be said to convey a serious imputation of defect in the plaintiff's product to a reasonable consumer.
Conclusion: The advertisement was not held to be prima facie disparaging, and interim injunction was refused.
Ratio Decidendi: A comparative advertisement is not actionable unless, viewed as a whole and by the standard of a reasonable consumer, it goes beyond permissible puffery and falsely denigrates a rival product.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
