V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

"Comparison lies at the root of modern advertising" says Cornish, W., in his "Intellectual Property"(4th Edn., Page 656). In McDonalds Vs Burgerking {(1986) FSR 45} Whitford J., warned that "advertisements are not to be read as if they are testamentary provision in a will or a clause in some agreement with every word being carefully considered and the words as a whole being compared". Yet, comparative advertisements have led to a lot of litigation and the case on hand is one.

2. C.S.No.451 of 2008 has been filed by Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd., for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from in any manner continuing the telecast of the impugned Television advertisements, filed as plaint document No.3 in a Compact Disk (CD) or telecasting any other advertisement which is disparaging or slandering the Colgate tooth pastes and for damages to the tune of Rs.10,01,000/-. Pending suit, the plaintiff has come up with -

.(i) O.A. No.493 of 2008 for an interim order of injunction restraining the respondent from making any false, misleading or disparaging representations or from making any slanderous statements/ representations in respect of the