https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198221 Disparagement in advertising was treated as a form of malicious falsehood requiring an untrue statement, malice and special damage, while commercial speech remained protected under Article 19(1)(a) subject to the prohibition on false, misleading, unfair or deceptive advertising. Comparative advertising was held permissible so long as it did not denigrate a rival product. On the facts, the impugned advertisement was not found to specifically or generally target the plaintiff, and its visual message was held to remain within permissible product puffery. The Court therefore found no prima facie serious imputation of defect to a reasonable consumer and refused interim injunction. en-us Mon, 09 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198221 Disparagement in advertising was treated as a form of malicious falsehood requiring an untrue statement, malice and special damage, while commercial speech remained protected under Article 19(1)(a) subject to the prohibition on false, misleading, unfair or deceptive advertising. Comparative advertising was held permissible so long as it did not denigrate a rival product. On the facts, the impugned advertisement was not found to specifically or generally target the plaintiff, and its visual message was held to remain within permissible product puffery. The Court therefore found no prima facie serious imputation of defect to a reasonable consumer and refused interim injunction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 09 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198221