https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198481 A notice of enquiry under the unfair trade practice provisions was maintained because the allegations of denigration through a misleading advertisement fell within the Commission's jurisdiction. On the merits, disparagement under Clause (x) of Section 36A(1) required a false or misleading attack on the goods of an identifiable manufacturer, and that standard was not met because the television advertisement did not identify the complainant's product or any other source with sufficient certainty. The advertisement was treated as permissible puffing and a superiority claim, which by itself does not amount to disparagement. The complaint therefore failed, the enquiry was discharged, and no costs were awarded. en-us Mon, 10 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Feb 2018 10:28:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198481 A notice of enquiry under the unfair trade practice provisions was maintained because the allegations of denigration through a misleading advertisement fell within the Commission's jurisdiction. On the merits, disparagement under Clause (x) of Section 36A(1) required a false or misleading attack on the goods of an identifiable manufacturer, and that standard was not met because the television advertisement did not identify the complainant's product or any other source with sufficient certainty. The advertisement was treated as permissible puffing and a superiority claim, which by itself does not amount to disparagement. The complaint therefore failed, the enquiry was discharged, and no costs were awarded. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 10 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198481