Defamation of goods — Trade disparagement — Injury to goodwill — Essential requirements In an action alleging defamation of goods or trade disparagement, plaintiff must establish that the impugned advertisement conveys a false and derogatory representation concerning the plaintiff’s product, having a tendency to lower its commercial reputation or goodwill in the estimation of an average consumer — Mere comparative promotion or praise of advertiser’s product does not amount to defamation. [Paras 29–31, 37–44, 51]

advocatemmmohan

Defamation of Goods / Goodwill & Reputation — Comparative Advertising)

---

Defamation of goods — Trade disparagement — Injury to goodwill — Essential requirements

In an action alleging defamation of goods or trade disparagement, plaintiff must establish that the impugned advertisement conveys a false and derogatory representation concerning the plaintiff’s product, having a tendency to lower its commercial reputation or goodwill in the estimation of an average consumer — Mere comparative promotion or praise of advertiser’s product does not amount to defamation.
[Paras 29–31, 37–44, 51]

---

Defamation of goodwill — Comparative advertising — Puffery distinguished

Puffery and exaggerated claims promoting advertiser’s product, even if untrue, are permissible — However, comparative advertising becomes actionable when it “rubbishes”, ridicules or portrays the rival product as inferior, harmful or undesirable, thereby injuring its goodwill — Absence of such derogatory tendency negatives defamation.
[Paras 37–44, 51]

---

Defamation of goods — Identification of rival product — Not decisive by itself

Identification of rival product is relevant but not the sole test — Even indirect reference may suffice if advertisement conveys a clear derogatory message affecting goodwill — Where advertisement does not inevitably lead consumers to believe that plaintiff’s product is bad or harmful, claim of defamation fails.
[Paras 54–57, 62–64]

---

Defamation of goodwill — Visual depiction — Overall impression test

Impugned advertisement must be viewed as a whole from the standpoint of an average consumer with imperfect recollection — Fleeting visuals or generic depictions (such as stubble or skin tone) which do not clearly convey inferiority or harmfulness of rival product do not constitute actionable defamation of goodwill.
[Paras 51, 62–64]

---

Defamation of goods — Quantified superiority claims — Tendency to injure goodwill

Quantified claims of superiority (e.g., “up to two times smoother”) imply measurable inferiority of competing products — In absence of objective and neutral substantiation, such claims may have a tendency to injure goodwill of rival goods and justify limited injunctive relief — Relief may be tailored rather than absolute.
[Paras 59–61, 65(b)]

---

Defamation of goodwill — Proof — Interim stage

At interlocutory stage, plaintiff is not required to prove actual loss — It is sufficient to show that the impugned representation has a prima facie tendency to damage goodwill — Where such tendency is speculative or remote, injunction is not warranted.
[Paras 51, 63–64]

---

Commercial speech — Defamation of goods — Constitutional balance

Comparative advertising forms part of protected commercial speech under Article 19(1)(a) — Such protection is lost only when advertisement is false, misleading or defamatory of rival’s goods — Courts must balance freedom of commercial expression with protection of commercial reputation.
[Paras 36–38, 47–50]

---

Ratio (Defamation / Goodwill )

Comparative advertising does not amount to defamation of goodwill unless the impugned representation, read as a whole, conveys a false and derogatory message lowering the commercial reputation of the rival product. Mere promotion, puffery or generic comparison, without such tendency, is not actionable as defamation of goods.