https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197049 Comparative advertising is permissible so long as it does not slander, denigrate, or rubbish a rival product. The Delhi HC found that the impugned television and print advertisements promoted the defendant's product by highlighting higher Oryzanol content and related health benefits, without stating that the plaintiff's product was bad. On that basis, the court held the ads were not disparaging and were merely comparative in substance. The plaintiff also failed to show that the claims were so untruthful or unsubstantiated as to justify interlocutory restraint, so no prima facie case for interim injunction was made out. en-us Thu, 18 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Dec 2017 09:58:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197049 Comparative advertising is permissible so long as it does not slander, denigrate, or rubbish a rival product. The Delhi HC found that the impugned television and print advertisements promoted the defendant's product by highlighting higher Oryzanol content and related health benefits, without stating that the plaintiff's product was bad. On that basis, the court held the ads were not disparaging and were merely comparative in substance. The plaintiff also failed to show that the claims were so untruthful or unsubstantiated as to justify interlocutory restraint, so no prima facie case for interim injunction was made out. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 18 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197049