JUDGMENT : (Prayer in O.A.No.554 of 2021 : Judge's Summons filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of C.P.C., (a). This application should not be treated as urgent? (b). This Hon'ble Court should not pleased to grant an interim injunction restraining the respondent, their management, members, affiliates, directors, servants, officers, employees, representatives, agents and all other persons claiming under them or acting in concert with them or on their behalf or acting on their instructions from telecasting, broadcasting, publishing, disseminating or otherwise communicating to the public in any manner, any advertisement or any part thereof or any other advertisements of a similar nature in any language or any other representation or in any other manner or part thereof or any other advertisement of a similar nature to be telecast or broadcast or communicated to the public or published in any manner which directly or indirectly or in any manner, disparages and/or denigrates the applicant's NIMYLE brand and/or goods bearing the NIMYLE trademark in any manner whatsoever, pending disposal of the suit. (c). Such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper should not be passed. O.A.No.555 of 2021: Judge's Summons filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of C.P.C., (a). This application should not be treated as urgent? (b). This Hon'ble Court should not pleased to grant an interim injunction restraining the respondent, their management, members, affiliates, directors, servants, officers, employees, representatives, agents and all other persons claiming under them or acting in concert with them or on their behalf or acting on their instructions from using in relation to the defendant's goods in any manner by way of advertisement or any manner whatsoever, the words “NIMYLE” or any other mark identical and/or deceptively similar thereto that infringes the Plaintiff's registered trademark/label NIMYLE or from using any other depiction of the product NIMYLE or any trade dress or distinctive feature thereof in any manner whatsoever, pending disposal of the suit and c). Such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper should not be passed. Such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper should not be passed. O.A.No.556 of 2021 : Judge's Summons filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of C.P.C., (a). This application should not be treated as urgent? (b). This Hon'ble Court should not pleased to grant an interim injunction restraining the respondent, their management, members, affiliates, directors, servants, officers, employees, representatives, agents and all other persons claiming under them or acting in concert with them or on their behalf or acting on their instructions from telecasting, broadcasting, publishing, disseminating or otherwise communicating to the public in any manner the impugned advertisement with Nimyle HERBAL Floor Cleaner or the trade mark Nimyle or any part thereof or any other advertisements of a similar nature in any language or any other representation or in any other manner or part thereof or any other advertisement of a similar nature disparaging and/or denigrated the plaintiff, its trademarks and/or products to be telecast or broadcast or communicated to the public or published in any manner which directly or indirectly or in any manner, disparages and/or denigrates the Applicant's NIMYLE HERBAL floor cleaner and/or goods bearing the NIMYLE trademark in any manner whatsoever, pending disposal of the suit. (c). Such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper should not be passed.) 1. The plaintiff is the manufacturer of “NIMYLE” floor cleaner. The defendant is the manufacturer of the “LIZOL” floor cleaner. Apprehending that, the defendant/respondent is likely to display an advertisement carrying denigrating and disparaging advertisement about the plaintiff product's “NIMYLE”. Mr.Arun C.Mohan, Learned Counsel for the applicant/plaintiff made a mentioning before this Court to move an Quia timet action suit with an application for exparte interim injunction. This Court declined the request. Primarily, for the reason that, the Court cannot restrain the right of expression in anticipation of defamation. Few days later, Mr.Arun C. Mohan, Learned Counsel for the applicant/plaintiff again mention that, the what feared has come true. The defendant/respondent had released the innuendo advertisement carrying defamatory and disparaging comments about the plaintiff product on 09.09.2021. 2. The suit when taken up for hearing, the defendant entered appearance and matter pending since 15.09.2021. Few days later, Mr.Arun C. Mohan, Learned Counsel for the applicant/plaintiff again mention that, the what feared has come true. The defendant/respondent had released the innuendo advertisement carrying defamatory and disparaging comments about the plaintiff product on 09.09.2021. 2. The suit when taken up for hearing, the defendant entered appearance and matter pending since 15.09.2021. When the Interlocutory application for interim injunction was taken up for hearing on 30.09.2021, the Learned Senior Counsel Dr.Abhishek Singhvi, brought to the notice of this Court that the plaint filed in anticipation of defamatory article needs amendment since the offending advertisement already been released. Hence, the plaintiff has taken out necessary application for amendment. Nonetheless, in view of urgency, the Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that, pending application for amendment, the prayer for interim injunction may be taken up for consideration since the damages caused due to the impugned advertisement is irreparable and continuous, hence to be restrained at the earliest. 3. Mr.Chander Lall, Learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent/defendant though initially expressed some reservation to consider the injunction application before taking up the application for amendment, later accepted to put forth his submission in the Injunction Applications. 4. The facts leading to the suit and the Interlocutory Applications in nutshell is as below:- The ITC Limited, who is the applicant herein is the manufacturer of the floor cleaner in the brand name “NIMYLE” Herbal. The Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited, the respondent/defendant herein had launched the advertisement for its product “LIZOL” a chemical disinfectant surface cleaner from 09.09.2021 onwards. In the said advertisement, the plaintiff's bottle “NIMYLE” herbal is used for the comparative advertisement. This is alleged as infringement of trademark under Section 29 of the Trademarks Act. The defendant by visual images suggest that, the plaintiff product is ineffective and doesn't provide 99.9% germs protection or protection from Covid – 19 virus. Further, it requires 3/4th litres of Herbal liquid to give 99.9% germs protection. Alleging that, the said impugned advertisement is contrary to honest practice in Industries, the suit is filed. 5. The applicant/plaintiff herein is aggrieved by the advertisement of the respondent/defendant, which display a storyboard, wherein, the public are informed that the efficacy of Herbal floor cleaner is very less. Alleging that, the said impugned advertisement is contrary to honest practice in Industries, the suit is filed. 5. The applicant/plaintiff herein is aggrieved by the advertisement of the respondent/defendant, which display a storyboard, wherein, the public are informed that the efficacy of Herbal floor cleaner is very less. 3/4th of 1 litre bottle i.e., approximately 800ml has to be used for killing 99.9% germs and therefore, it is inferior to the product of the respondent “LIZOL” which needs for ½ a bucket of water only 2-3 cupfulls of “LIZOL” to kill 99.9% germs. Whereas, 800ml of herbal floor cleaner is required for the same effect. 6. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant/plaintiff referring the storyboard submitted that the colour of the liquid found in the bottle carrying the label “Herbal” clearly resembles the applicant's product “NIMYLE”. The bottles displayed in the racks found in the background of the lady on her right contains the products of the applicant in the middle two rows to show that, they are the herbal products and inferior in efficacy. The applicant/plaintiff being a market Leader of herbal floor cleaner is aggrieved by the said advertisement being disparaging in nature. 7. Dr.Abhishek Singhvi Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant/plaintiff drew the attention of this Court attention to the march of law regarding the freedom of expression and trade, viz., commercial speech/ advertisement. The Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant/plaintiff submitted that, expression through advertisement like any other fundamental right is subject to the reasonable restrictions imposed under Article 19(2) of Constitution. The defamatory expressions are restricted and no defence of truth or otherwise can be pleaded. 8. As far as this case is concerned, the expressions which are disparaging the products of the respondent are not even true but misrepresentation and misleading statements. While claiming efficacy in killing Covid-19 virus, the respondent/defendant make a blatant false statement that, the herbal floor cleaner will not kill 99.9% germs. Under the guise of comparative advertisement and education to the consumers, the false information and disparaging remarks are made against the applicant's product, which is not legally permissible. 9. The sum and substances of the argument made by the Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant/plaintiff is that, the freedom of expression through advertisement by business house cannot be an absolute freedom but subject to the restriction. 9. The sum and substances of the argument made by the Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant/plaintiff is that, the freedom of expression through advertisement by business house cannot be an absolute freedom but subject to the restriction. The commercial speech cannot transgress the line by offending or disparaging the rival product. 10. The respondent/defendant has taken the defence that, it is the fundamental right to display comparative advertisement and statements found in the advertisements are true. The customers have right to be informed about the products. 11. Relying upon Hamdard Dawakhana case, the Learned Counsel for the respondent claimed that the Commercial Speech form part of fundamental right. Telling truth to the public cannot be restrained by judicial order. 12. The issues involved in this case is that:- “(i). Whether the impugned advertisement carried by the respondent is denigrating or disparaging the products of the applicant's namely NIMYLE? (ii). Whether in exercise of the right of freedom of expression and trade, the respondent shall continue the impugned advertisement? (iii). Whether there is any truth in the advertisement and if so, can truth be a defence or justification to continue the impugned advertisement?” 13. In Hamdard Dawakhana (Walf) Lal Kuan -vs- Union of India reported in AIR 1960 SC 554 , the constitutional validity of the drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954, which prohibited advertisements relating to drugs and medicines connected to diseases expressly mentioned in Section 3 of the Act and advertisement which are objectionable or unethical and are used to promote self-medication or self treatment was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Apex Court, in this case held that, unreasonable restriction on fundamental right is unconstitutional. In other words, the fundamental right of expression through advertisement and right to trade both are fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(f) of Constitution. These rights are subject to the reasonable restriction. In far as, freedom of expression, one of the restriction expressly mentioned in Article 19(2) of the Constitution is “defamation”. 14. In view of this Court, the law on freedom of commercial speech to enhance the one's own commercial interest simplicitor. Any advertisement under the guise of free flow of commercial information if directly or indirectly cause denigrative to the rival products then such advertisement are bound to be restricted. 14. In view of this Court, the law on freedom of commercial speech to enhance the one's own commercial interest simplicitor. Any advertisement under the guise of free flow of commercial information if directly or indirectly cause denigrative to the rival products then such advertisement are bound to be restricted. If false, deceptive or misleading innuendo statements allowed to pass off under the cover of freedom of commercial speech or flow of commercial information, it is be a free for all malign campaign displaying abuse. 15. The judgments relied by the Learned Counsels on either side render by Courts in India as well as Abroad, had never endorsed right to defame the rival product. Further, the defence of truth which can be ascertained only after trial and not on a prima facie basis. More particularly, the facts asserted as truth is a subjective and not an objective, such facts to be left to be decided based on evidence recorded in the trial. 16. In the instant case, the zone of conflict is not in respect of right of expression or a right of access to information or the right to exhibit comparative advertisement, the zone of conflict centres whether the comparison made is to be restrained as defamatory, or true and fair to be allowed. Whether the comparison done is with an ulterior motive to damage the reputation of the rival product or honest disclosure of information to public at large. 17. This Court in Hindustan Unilever Limited -vs- Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited and others, (Madras High Court judgment dated 04.09.2008) relates to the comparative advertisement between bleach based “Domex” toilet cleaner produced by the plaintiff and bleached based, Acid based “Harpic” cleaner produced by the defendant. While upholding the right of advertisement being protected under Article 19(1)(a)&(g) of the Constitution, Court clearly held that, such right should satisfy the test of reasonableness under Article 19(2) of Constitution of India. The contradictory campaigns made by the manufacturers of “Domex” and the manufacturers of “Harpic” resulted in the above verdict by Hon'ble Justice V.Ramasubramanian, (as he then was) wherein the governing principles, enlisted as under:- “66. In fine, the following principles emerge namely-- (a). Publication of advertisements being free commercial speech, is protected by Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution, as per the dictum of the Apex Court in Tata Press case. In fine, the following principles emerge namely-- (a). Publication of advertisements being free commercial speech, is protected by Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution, as per the dictum of the Apex Court in Tata Press case. (b) There are a few restrictions on the aforesaid right, which would satisfy the test of reasonableness under Article 19(2). These restrictions could be traced to the definition of the term "unfair trade practice" in section 36 A of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 and section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (c) Therefore, only if a case of disparaging advertisement falls within the definition of the term "unfair trade practice", an action may lie. It would lie before a Consumer Forum, at the instance of a consumer or a group of consumers or a voluntary consumer association or even the Central or the State Government (see the definition of the word "complainant" under section 2(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act). It may even lie before the MRTP Commission. (or the Competition Commission after it is constituted). (d) An action may lie against such an advertisement before a civil court both at the instance of a manufacturer or marketer and at the instance of a consumer (since section 3 makes the Consumer Protection Act an additional law and not a law in derogation of any other law), provided that the advertisement in question contains a false representation coming within the 4 corners of sub-clauses (i) to (x) of clause (1) of section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act. (e) A careful scrutiny of all the sub-clauses in section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act would show that 4 types of representations are categorised as "unfair trade practices" namely (1) false representations falling under sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii); (2) representations which may not necessarily be false but are nevertheless incorrect coming under sub-clauses (iv) and (v); (3) warranty or guarantee coming under sub-clauses (vii) and (viii); and (4) false or misleading representations falling under sub-clauses (vi), (ix) and (x). If an advertisement contains a false representation within the meaning of sub clauses (i) to (iii) or an incorrect representation within the meaning of sub clauses (iv) and (v) or a warranty or guarantee within the meaning of sub clauses (vii) and (viii) or a false or misleading representation or fact within the meaning of sub clauses (vii), (ix) and (x) of clause (1) of section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, then an action may lie. (f) In the light of the above statutory prescription, it is doubtful if false claims by traders, about the superiority of their products, either simplicitor or in comparison with the products of their rivals, is permissible in law. In other words, the law as it stands today, does not appear to tolerate puffery anymore. I do not know if "Puffing" which is only a twin sister of "bluffing", permitted by English courts in the past, still has the sanction of law even in England, after the advent of 'legacy regulators' such as CAP, Oftel, Ofcom, Clearcast etc., and the issue of The Control of Misleading Advertisement Regulations,1988 (as amended by Regulations of 2000) and the enactment of the Communications Act, 2003. (Emphasis added) (g) An advertisement which tends to enlighten the consumer either by exposing the falsity or misleading nature of the claim made by the trade rival or by presenting a comparison of the merits (or demerits) of their respective products, is for the public good and hence cannot be taken to be an actionable wrong, unless 2 tests are satisfied namely (i) that it is motivated by malice and (ii) that it is also false. This is on account of the fact that a competitor is more well equipped to make such an exposure than anyone else and hence the benefit that would flow to the society at large on account of such exposure, would always outweigh the loss of business for the person affected. If 2 trade rivals indulge in puffery without hitting each other, the consumer is misled by both, unless there is increased awareness or Governmental intervention. On the other hand, if both are restrained from either making false representations/incorrect representations/ misleading representations or issuing unintended warranties (as defined as unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act), then the consumer stands to gain. On the other hand, if both are restrained from either making false representations/incorrect representations/ misleading representations or issuing unintended warranties (as defined as unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act), then the consumer stands to gain. Similarly, permitting 2 trade rivals to expose each other in a truthful manner, will also result in consumer education.” 18. Since the above said judgment has encapsulised almost all the relevant judgment cited by both sides, I am of the view that, there is no necessity to re-produce the same again in different language. The principle enumerated in this judgment holds the field and it is to be tested whether the impugned advertisements pass the test laid in Hindustan Unilever Limited case. 19. The storyboard of the respondent's advertisement alleged to be disparaging is extracted as below:- “IMAGES” 20. From the above storyboard featuring the demonstrating lady and the voice over, clearly indicates it target consumers of floor cleaner. The message conveyed in short is that, the Herbal floor cleaner which is in green colour will not kill 99.9% germs, if 2-3 capfuls of it is added with water in 1:5 ratio. To get the desired result, one has to add 800 ml of the herbal cleaner in ½ a bucket of water i.e., around 4 litres of water. The comparison found in the last but one slide indicate that, “LIZOL” the product of the defendant requires only one cupful of liquid for 4 litres of water to kill germs and Covid-19 virus. The information conveyed is “choose smartly, keep your family safe buy LIZOL”. 21. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant/plaintiff pointing out the two middle rows of products displayed on the right side of the demonstrating lady claim that they are the products of the plaintiff. They are in green in colour in two different shapes of bottles. The word herbal is visibly shown to the viewers by the demonstrator and the voice over says that the herbal product in the bottle (which is identical to the bottle of the applicant) will not kill 99.9% germs. This depiction and statements are disparaging in nature denigrating the competitors product. 22. The word herbal is visibly shown to the viewers by the demonstrator and the voice over says that the herbal product in the bottle (which is identical to the bottle of the applicant) will not kill 99.9% germs. This depiction and statements are disparaging in nature denigrating the competitors product. 22. The principles of law reiterating in the unreported judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High in Hindustan Unilever Limited -vs- Reckitt Benckiser India Limited, dated 17.11.2006 and the judgment of Calcutta High Court in G.A.No.583 of 2013, G.A.No.669 of 2013, C.S.No.56 of 2013, G.A.No.938 of 2013 and C.S.No.87 of 2013 (Reckitt Benckister (India) Limited -vs- Hindustan Unilever Limited reported in 2014 (57) PTC 78 [Cal], are relied by the applicant/plaintiff. The relevant portion of the judgment is:- “5. This principle of law, therefore, stands firmly established that disparaging advertisement, whereby the product of the competitor is denigrated, is not permissible. Law would consider any slanderous complaint or comment to be an actionable injury which the courts would step in to prevent in appropriate cases. Thus, in a given case the court is required to find out as to whether the advertiser is merely trying to promote his product for which even he is allowed to puff up his product and can even go to the extent of saying that his goods are better than his competitor's, but at the same time he cannot brand the competitor's product as bad. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles it is to be examined whether in the present case the impugned advertisement has crossed the Laxmanrekha.” 23. And submitted that,“ A trader should not be permitted to advertise facts, data, figures, deficiencies etc. of the products of the another, especially a rival, directly or indirectly by an innuendo.” 24. Also the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gillette India Limited -vs- Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited reported in 2018 SCC Online Mad 1126, relied and same is extracted below:- “93.......... (i) A tradesman is entitled to declare his goods to be best in the world, even though the declaration is untrue. (ii) He can also say that his goods are better than his competitors, even though such statement is untrue. (i) A tradesman is entitled to declare his goods to be best in the world, even though the declaration is untrue. (ii) He can also say that his goods are better than his competitors, even though such statement is untrue. (iii) For the purpose of saying that his goods are the best in the world or his goods are better than his competitors he can even compare the advantages of his goods over the goods of others. (iv) He however, cannot, while saying that his goods are better than his competitors, say that his competitors goods are bad. If he says so, he really slanders the goods of his competitors. In other words, he defames his competitors and their goods, which is not permissible. (v) If there is no defamation to the goods or to the manufacturer of such goods no action lies, but if there is such defamation an action lies and if an action lies for recovery of damages for defamation, then the Court is also competent to grant an order of injunction restraining repetition of such defamation.” In the very same judgment, the Division Bench of this Court had also expressed that, “105. If in a suit for disparagement in relation to an advertisement a strong prima facie case of disparagement is made out, injunction would necessarily have to be granted, for pecuniary compensation could never compensate defamation and/or disparagement. By grant of injunction, the opposite party would only be restrained from disparaging the applicant for injunction till a final decision was taken by the Court. The prejudice to the applicant for injunction by continuous exhibition of disparaging advertisements would be irreparable, and far greater than the prejudice to the opposite party, if the applicant ultimately succeeded. ....... ....... 117. Defence of truth may be a good defence in a disparagement suit. However, whether the advertisement is truthful or not would necessarily have to be adjudicated upon trial. Disputes as to whether the acidity or the alkalinity of depilatory creams of the respondent plaintiff is beyond the safety limits cannot be decided at the interlocutory stage.” 25. ....... ....... 117. Defence of truth may be a good defence in a disparagement suit. However, whether the advertisement is truthful or not would necessarily have to be adjudicated upon trial. Disputes as to whether the acidity or the alkalinity of depilatory creams of the respondent plaintiff is beyond the safety limits cannot be decided at the interlocutory stage.” 25. The Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/defendant submitted that, in Tata Press Limited -vs- Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and others reported in 1995 (5) SCC 139 , the full bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, public at large is benefited by the information made available through the advertisement. In a democratic economy, free flow of commercial information is indispensable. Therefore, commercial speech is a part of speech of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The said freedom of speech includes within its compass the right of all citizens to read and be informed (Bennett Coleman -vs- Union of India reported in 1972 (2) SCC 788 ). 26. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lakhanpal National Limited -vs- MRTP Commission and another reported in 1989 (3) SCC 251 , the Learned Senior Counsels for the respondent submitted that, “In the fast changing modern world advertising goods is a well-recognised marketing strategy, wherein, the consumers also need it, to be informed about the product which they intend to buy. If the manufacturers make available, by proper publicity, necessary details about their products, they come has great help to the man in the street. The object must to bring honestly and truth in the relationship between the manufactures and the consumers. If a trader compares his goods with the goods of rival without in any way advertising that the trademark is used in relation to his goods, there is a prima facie no infringement”. 27. This Court also take note that in Gillette India Limited -vs- Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited reported in 2018 SCC Online Mad 1126, cited supra wherein, the Division Bench of this Court has held, “......Mere puffing up of one's product or service in comparison to those of others would not constitute disparagement......” 28. In the advertisement which is the subject matter of the instant application, the products shown is green colour liquid found in the bottle of a particular shape and design. In the advertisement which is the subject matter of the instant application, the products shown is green colour liquid found in the bottle of a particular shape and design. The word “herbal” is in a stylish font printed on the label of the product and displayed predominantly to be seen by the viewers. Further, in the rack containing several products, the products of the applicant/plaintiff found in middle two rows on the right side of the demonstrator. The voice draw the attention of the viewers to read the label of the herbal floor cleaner. Thereafter, go to show that the 1:5 ratio refers the proportion of the herbal liquid and the water. Thereafter, the voice declares that, this will not kill 99.9% germs. The advertisement on the whole conveys two messages, first herbal cleaner which is green in colour, will not kill 99.9% germs, second 800ml herbal liquid is required whereas 2-3 cupfull of “LIZOL” is sufficient for the same effect or result. 29. The Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent emphatically submit that, it is a statement of truth and the bottle in the hand of the demonstrating lady is not the bottle in which the applicant's product are now sold. Applicant have withdrawn the bottle design and they have introduced a different design which is identical to the bottle found in the 3rd row from the top. Whereas, the bottle found in the hands of the demonstrator is similar to the bottle in the 2nd row. For the viewers, whether the bottle in 2nd row or in the 3rd row, the message conveyed through this advertisement is that, the green colour herbal floor cleaner are not effective, it will not kill 99.9% germs and more liquid is required for achieving required efficacy. 30. The Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/defendant says that, it is a statement of truth. Whereas, this Court is of the opinion that, even if it is a statement of truth, whether the efficacy of the applicant's product is not capable of killing 99.9% germs as claimed by the defendant in his advertisement has to be proved to take truth as defence. If, in case, the defendant fails to prove the same, the advertisement will cause irreparable loss to the applicant. If, in case, the defendant fails to prove the same, the advertisement will cause irreparable loss to the applicant. If the advertisements is allowed to be displayed till the disposal of the suit, the damages likely to cause to the applicant cannot be compensated by money. The negative advertisement which is impugned before this Court clearly indicates that, herbal floor cleaner in green colour is ineffective. It requires more liquid. In commercial parlance, such assertion is disparaging and discrediting the rival product. Such statement will not fall within the ambit of fair comment or truth since it is a statement in general and fall foul of fallacy of generalisation. Prima faciely the said statement is without any scientific support. Such a statement will amount to disparagement and cannot be permitted to be displayed or exhibited. 31. The meaning of expression “disparage” as given in the commonly used dictionaries and extracted by this Court in Gillette India Limited -vs- Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 1126, which reads as below:- “.....to speak slightingly, to undervalue, to bring discredit or dishonour, to deprecate, to degrade, to derogate, to denigrate, to defame, to reproach, to disgrace, or to unjustly class. Disparagement is, inter alia, the act of speaking slightingly, of undervaluing, of bringing discredit or dishonour, of deprecating or degrading or disgracing or unjust classing. It also means derogation or denigration or defamation or reproachment.” 32. In case of Interlocutory Applications filed under Order XXXIX of C.P.C., the Court is bound to consider the three cordial requirements namely prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. 33. This Court while considering almost similar facts in Annamalayar Agencies -vs- VVS and Sons Private Limited and others reported in 2008 (38) PTC 37 (Mad), where advertisement in respect of coconut oil manufactured by the rival parties under the tradename “Parachute” and “VVD Gold” was considered, the principles laid by the Courts in the earlier judgments were taken note and the injunction application seeking order of restrain the comparative advertisements allowed laying down the following guidelines:- “(1). A manufacturer of a disparaged product which though not identified by name can complain of and seek to injunct such disparagement. (2) Generic disparagement of a rival product without specifically identifying or pinpointing the rival product is equally objectionable. A manufacturer of a disparaged product which though not identified by name can complain of and seek to injunct such disparagement. (2) Generic disparagement of a rival product without specifically identifying or pinpointing the rival product is equally objectionable. (3) Advertisement campaign on visual media has an immediate impact on the viewers and possible purchasers' mind particularly a well-known cinema star is endorsing it. (4) There must be a dividing line between statements that are actionable and those which are not. (5) When a claim of superiority over a rival product is made and until the same is proved by a panel of experts, an order of interim nature should operate against those advertisements. (6) Advertiser has a right, to boast of its technological superiority in comparison with a product of a competitor, however while doing so, he cannot disparage the goods of the competitor. (7) If the Defendants highlight its better future while comparing its product with that of the Plaintiff in an advertisement, no possible objection can be raised thereto. (8) Courts will injunct an advertiser from publishing an article if the dominant purpose is to injure the reputation of the Plaintiff. (9) The factors to be kept in mind to decide the question of disparagement are (1) intent of the commercial (2) manner of the commercial (3) story line of the commercial, and (4) the message sought to be conveyed by the commercial. (10) The degree of disparagement must be such that it would tantamount to or almost tantamount to defamation. (11) An advertiser can say that his product is better than that of his rival, but he cannot say that the rival's product is inferior to his product.” 34. The intend of the advertisement, the manner of advertisement, story line of the advertisement and the message sought to be conveyed through this advertisement squarely amounts to defamation, not only the applicant's product but also all the herbal products meant for floor cleaning. The superiority of the respondent's product cannot be boosted, the way in which the advertisement depicts. It is a disparagement of all products which claims to be herbal. The advertisement tantamount to say the product with chemical is superior to the products containing herbs. 35. In view of this Court, the immediate impact on the viewers of the impugned advertisement will be, the herbal floor cleaners are ineffective. It is a disparagement of all products which claims to be herbal. The advertisement tantamount to say the product with chemical is superior to the products containing herbs. 35. In view of this Court, the immediate impact on the viewers of the impugned advertisement will be, the herbal floor cleaners are ineffective. More particularly, the herbal cleaners which are green in colour will not kill 99.9% germs. Furthermore, the herbal floor cleaner which is green in colour found in a particular shape of bottle will not kill 99.9% germs. It requires more liquid compare to the respondents product “LIZOL” to have any effect. 36. The bottle colour and expression “herbal” are the identification marks similar to the applicant/plaintiff product “NIMYLE”. Therefore, the claim of superiority of “LIZOL” and the accusation of inferiority of herbal products cannot be allowed to be advertised until same is proved scientifically. Such a conclusion could be arrived only after trial. Hence, till then undoubtedly the order of interim injunction should operate against this advertisement. 37. Therefore, this Court holds that the impugned advertisement is in the nature of defamation of herbal products, so cannot be allowed to be displayed till the persons who claims the statement as truth proves it. 38. Hence, interim injunction granted restraining the respondent, their management, members, affiliates, directors, servants, officers, employees, representatives, agents and all other persons claiming under them or acting in concert with them or on their behalf or acting on their instructions from telecasting, broadcasting, publishing, disseminating or otherwise communicating to the public in any manner, the impugned advertisement carrying the storyboard or any part thereof extracted in paragraph No.20 of this order. The respondent/defendant is hereby directed to withdraw/stop forthwith from displaying the impugned advertisement through any mode, in any manner and in any language. 39. In the result, the Original Application Nos.554 to 556 of 2021 are allowed . No costs.