https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196264 Advertisements identifying a manufacturer by its product brand names were held not to amount to an unfair trade practice under section 36-A, because the objective test is whether the representation would mislead a reasonable consumer about material facts. On the admitted facts, the brand names "National" and "Panasonic" were well-known product names of the Japanese collaborator and did not create real confusion about the manufacturer's identity or the quality of the goods. The SC also held that adjudication could not go beyond the specific charge in the show cause notice, so the restraint order could not stand. en-us Tue, 02 May 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Nov 2017 16:43:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196264 Advertisements identifying a manufacturer by its product brand names were held not to amount to an unfair trade practice under section 36-A, because the objective test is whether the representation would mislead a reasonable consumer about material facts. On the admitted facts, the brand names "National" and "Panasonic" were well-known product names of the Japanese collaborator and did not create real confusion about the manufacturer's identity or the quality of the goods. The SC also held that adjudication could not go beyond the specific charge in the show cause notice, so the restraint order could not stand. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 02 May 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196264