Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Submissions on behalf of the defendants:

5.1 Impugned TVC and Print Advertisements are instances of puffery, wherein, the additional positive attributes of defendants‟ product are being highlighted and consumers are encouraged to opt for the same. There is no mention or identification, either verbal or visual, of plaintiff‟s product or any other Chyawanprash product in the impugned TVC or Print Advertisements. Puffery is not actionable and does not amount to disparagement as it is not taken literally by average customer and therefore, some level of untruth is acceptable.

A misleading action is an „unfair commercial practice‟, and a trader who engages in a misleading action is guilty of an offence. xxx xxx xxx"

(Emphasis Supplied)

21. Thus, what comes to the fore are two important factors, i.e., firstly, deception or the likelihood of deception by an advertisement, and secondly, the alteration of consumer‟s economic transactions as a result of such deceptive and misleading advertisement. One exception to such deception/misrepresentation is the instance of puffing up of advertiser‟s own product, also known as „puffery‟. Puffery is practiced by employing hyperbole in order to exaggerate the qualities of goods or service, which is more often than not, false. However, it is now well settled that puffery shall only be used by advertisers in instances wherein it would be clear to the average consumer that the statement made is not to be taken seriously.

 Impugned advertisements are instances of puffery wherein the additional positive attributes of defendants‟ product are being highlighted and consumers are encouraged to opt for the same. It is settled law that puffery is not actionable and does not amount to disparagement.

 No relief which is itself in the nature of a final relief can be granted at the interim stage and therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to any interim relief as the prayers sought in I.A. 49744/2024 and I.A. 419/2025 are identical to the prayer in the plaint.

"xxx xxx xxx

62. Apropos puffery, this Court further noted, referring to the decisions of the Chancery Division in De Beers Abrasive v. International General Electric Co.[(1975) 2 All ER 599] that puffery, as a matter of pure logic, involved an element of denigration of the rival's goods. The distinction between permissible puffery and impermissible puffery was held to be accurately captured in the following passage from De Beers Abrasive [(1975) 2 All ER 599: