https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103990 An appellate court should not interfere with a discretionary interim injunction restraining advertisements that claimed anti-bacterial superiority and indirectly disparaged a competitor's product. The restraint was expressly temporary and remained subject to the final decision on the injunction application after expert opinion. Because the dispute turned on technical rival scientific claims supported by expert material on both sides, and the appellant had itself suggested an expert panel, the order was treated as an interlocutory measure that called for no appellate interference at that stage. The merits of the rival claims were left unexamined to avoid prejudice in the preliminary proceeding, and the interim injunction was upheld. en-us Wed, 17 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Feb 2018 14:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103990 An appellate court should not interfere with a discretionary interim injunction restraining advertisements that claimed anti-bacterial superiority and indirectly disparaged a competitor's product. The restraint was expressly temporary and remained subject to the final decision on the injunction application after expert opinion. Because the dispute turned on technical rival scientific claims supported by expert material on both sides, and the appellant had itself suggested an expert panel, the order was treated as an interlocutory measure that called for no appellate interference at that stage. The merits of the rival claims were left unexamined to avoid prejudice in the preliminary proceeding, and the interim injunction was upheld. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 17 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103990