https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196755 Advertisements that identify a rival product by appearance and price reference may cross the line from permissible puffery into actionable disparagement where they convey that the rival product is inferior or harmful. The court applied the principle that a trader may praise its own goods and claim superiority, but cannot denigrate a competitor's product, even indirectly. On the facts, the impugned advertisements were found to target the plaintiff's whitener as part of the class shown, and to suggest it would leave blue patches. The advertisements were therefore held to be disparaging, and the interim injunction was continued until disposal of the suit. en-us Mon, 24 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Dec 2017 17:06:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196755 Advertisements that identify a rival product by appearance and price reference may cross the line from permissible puffery into actionable disparagement where they convey that the rival product is inferior or harmful. The court applied the principle that a trader may praise its own goods and claim superiority, but cannot denigrate a competitor's product, even indirectly. On the facts, the impugned advertisements were found to target the plaintiff's whitener as part of the class shown, and to suggest it would leave blue patches. The advertisements were therefore held to be disparaging, and the interim injunction was continued until disposal of the suit. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 24 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196755