Disparagement in advertising requires a misleading attack on identifiable goods; mere puffery or superiority claims are not enough.

A notice of enquiry under the unfair trade practice provisions was maintained because the allegations of denigration through a misleading advertisement fell within the Commission's jurisdiction. On the merits, disparagement under Clause (x) of Section 36A(1) required a false or misleading attack on the goods of an identifiable manufacturer, and that standard was not met because the television advertisement did not identify the complainant's product or any other source with sufficient certainty. The advertisement was treated as permissible puffing and a superiority claim, which by itself does not amount to disparagement. The complaint therefore failed, the enquiry was discharged, and no costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notice of enquiry was maintainable. (ii) Whether the respondents indulged in an unfair trade practice by disparaging the goods of another person through the impugned advertisement.

Issue (i): Whether the notice of enquiry was maintainable.

Analysis: The objection to maintainability was not substantiated and no persuasive argument was advanced to show lack of jurisdiction. The allegations disclosed a complaint of denigration through a misleading advertisement and, on its face, attracted the Commission's jurisdiction under the unfair trade practice provisions.

Conclusion: The notice of enquiry was maintainable and the objection failed, in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondents indulged in an unfair trade practice by disparaging the goods of another person through the impugned advertisement.

Analysis: To establish disparagement under Clause (x) of Section 36A(1), it had to be shown that the advertisement falsely or misleadingly disparaged the goods, services or trade of an identifiable manufacturer. The advertisement shown on television did not identify the complainant's product or any other manufacturer's product with sufficient certainty, and the bottle depicted could not be related to any identifiable source. The Court also treated the advertisement as, at most, an instance of permissible puffing and a claim of superiority, which by itself does not amount to disparagement.

Conclusion: The charge of unfair trade practice was not proved and the finding was in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The enquiry failed on the merits, the remaining issues did not survive, and the notice of enquiry was discharged without costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Disparagement under Section 36A(1)(x) requires a false or misleading representation directed at the goods of an identifiable manufacturer, and mere puffery or superiority claims do not suffice.

---