Comparative advertising and disparagement principles applied to reject a prima facie case for injunction against product advertisements.

Comparative advertising permits a trader to claim superiority and compare products, but not to denigrate a rival's goods or publish malicious falsehood. The Court examined the television commercial and print advertisement as a whole on a prima facie basis and found them essentially comparative, aimed at projecting the defendant's product as superior. The claims about germ attack power, Triclosan retention, and the visual depiction did not conclusively establish falsity or disparagement at the interlocutory stage. No ad interim injunction was warranted because the plaintiff's product was not shown, prima facie, to have been disparaged.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned television and print advertisements were disparaging or denigrating of the plaintiff's product and thereby justified grant of an ad interim injunction.

Analysis: The Court applied the settled principles on comparative advertising, under which a trader may claim that its product is better than a rival's product and may compare products, but may not state that the rival's product is bad or indulge in malicious falsehood. The advertisements were viewed as a whole and on a prima facie basis. The Court held that the TV commercial and print advertisement were essentially comparative in nature, intended to project the defendant's product as superior, and did not, at this stage, rubbish or defame the plaintiff's product. The Court also found that the claims regarding germ attack power, Triclosan retention, and the visual depiction did not conclusively establish falsity or disparagement at the interlocutory stage.

Conclusion: The advertisements were not shown, prima facie, to be disparaging of the plaintiff's product, and no ad interim injunction was warranted.

---