https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196744 A television commercial crossed the line from permissible puffery into actionable disparagement by suggesting that Chayawanprash should not be consumed in summer and that Amritprash was the preferable substitute. The Delhi HC held that even without naming the plaintiff's brand, the message was directed against the generic class of Chayawanprash and implied that such products were not good for health in summer. A trader may promote its own goods, but it cannot denigrate a competitor's goods or the class to which they belong. Temporary injunction was granted restraining telecast of the impugned commercial during the suit. en-us Fri, 28 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Jun 2024 15:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196744 A television commercial crossed the line from permissible puffery into actionable disparagement by suggesting that Chayawanprash should not be consumed in summer and that Amritprash was the preferable substitute. The Delhi HC held that even without naming the plaintiff's brand, the message was directed against the generic class of Chayawanprash and implied that such products were not good for health in summer. A trader may promote its own goods, but it cannot denigrate a competitor's goods or the class to which they belong. Temporary injunction was granted restraining telecast of the impugned commercial during the suit. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 28 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196744