## Facts

- Mellin sold “Mellin’s Food,” a proprietary infant food.
- White sold a competing infant food, “Dr. Vance’s Prepared Food for Infants and Invalids,” and also retailed Mellin’s Food.
- White affixed or circulated a notice on tins of Mellin’s Food recommending the public try Dr. Vance’s product as “far more nutritious and healthful than any other preparation yet offered.”
- Mellin sued for an injunction and damages, alleging the notice disparaged Mellin’s product through comparative claims of superiority.
- Mellin did not prove any specific loss of profits or other pecuniary loss caused by the notice.
- The trial court dismissed the claim for failure to prove damage; the Court of Appeal ordered a new trial; the House of Lords allowed White’s appeal and restored the dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether a claim for disparagement of goods (injurious/malicious falsehood) is maintainable, including for injunctive relief, without pleading and proving actual pecuniary damage.
2. Whether a generalized comparative advertising claim that a rival product is superior is actionable disparagement, or non-actionable trade “puffing,” absent proof of loss.

## Decision

- The House of Lords allowed White’s appeal and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal.
- Actual pecuniary damage was required; Mellin’s failure to prove monetary loss defeated the claim.
- The comparative claim was treated as the type of generalized “puffing” commonly used in trade and not actionable without proof that it caused financial harm.
- The court declined to treat such disputes as requiring judicial determinations of which competing product was “better” in the marketplace.

## Legal Principles

- Disparagement of goods (injurious/malicious falsehood) requires: (1) a false statement about the plaintiff’s goods, (2) malicious publication, and (3) pleaded and proven actual pecuniary damage.
- Actual financial loss is the gist of the action; without proof of loss, the claim fails even if the statement is allegedly false or ill-motivated.
- General comparative superiority claims typical of advertising are not actionable merely because they imply a competitor’s product is inferior; liability turns on provable financial injury.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords held that a trader cannot recover for disparagement of goods based on comparative advertising without proving actual pecuniary damage, and that broad claims of superiority amount to non-actionable “puffing” unless they are shown to have caused financial loss.


White v. Mellin, [1895] A.C. 154 (H.L. 1895)