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 television commercial disparaged the plaintiff's product and whether ad interim injunction should be granted restraining its telecast.
Analysis: The commercial was assessed from the standpoint of a common consumer and not on the basis of technical test reports alone. It portrayed a sick child, repeated reference to "two dhakkans", a bottle and clouding effect closely resembling the plaintiff's antiseptic liquid, and suggested that the antiseptic liquid was ineffective while the defendant's soap provided "100% germ protection". Comparative advertising is permissible, but only so far as a trader praises its own product without denigrating a rival's product. The Court found that the impugned commercial went beyond mere puffery and conveyed a disparaging message about the plaintiff's antiseptic liquid. The Court also held that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case, that the balance of convenience favoured protection of the plaintiff's goodwill, and that refusal of interim relief would cause irreparable harm.
Conclusion: The impugned commercial amounted to disparagement of the plaintiff's product and ad interim injunction was warranted.