https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196762 The court rejected the argument of suppression of material facts by the plaintiffs. It held that the defendants' advertisements disparaged the plaintiffs' product by showing a label similar to the plaintiffs' and implying ineffectiveness. The court granted an ad-interim injunction, permitting the advertisements to continue if the label resembling the plaintiffs' was removed. The court emphasized that comparative advertising is permissible as long as it does not defame or disparage competitors' products. en-us Thu, 19 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Dec 2017 17:51:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196762 The court rejected the argument of suppression of material facts by the plaintiffs. It held that the defendants' advertisements disparaged the plaintiffs' product by showing a label similar to the plaintiffs' and implying ineffectiveness. The court granted an ad-interim injunction, permitting the advertisements to continue if the label resembling the plaintiffs' was removed. The court emphasized that comparative advertising is permissible as long as it does not defame or disparage competitors' products. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 19 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196762