Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Utilizamos tu perfil de LinkedIn y tus datos de actividad para personalizar los anuncios y mostrarte publicidad más relevante. Puedes cambiar tus preferencias de publicidad en cualquier momento.

Colgate vs Pepsodent Comparative advertisement

Colgate vs Pepsodent Comparative advertisement legal issue

  • Inicia sesión para ver los comentarios

Colgate vs Pepsodent Comparative advertisement

  1. 1. COMPARATIVE ADVERTISEMENT VS
  2. 2. DEFINATION Comparative advertising is an advertisement in which a particular product, or service, specifically mentions a competitor by name for the express purpose of showing why the competitor is inferior to the product naming it. The advertised brand is explicitly compared with one or more competing brands and the comparison is oblivious to the audience. GROUP- 1
  3. 3. Comparative claims are variable in nature. a. Explicitly or implicitly. b. Similarities (positive comparisons) or the differences (negative comparisons) between the products. c. Superiority claims or “as good as” the competitor’s (equivalence or parity claims). The aim behind this concept is to allow honest (i.e. not misleading ) comparison of the factors of one trader’s products with those of another; such a comparison will inevitably involve the use of the trade marks associated with the products.
  4. 4.  Colgate (sub-brand of Colgate-Palmolive) is an oral hygiene product line of toothpastes, toothbrushes, mouthwashes and dental floss.  Colgate was the first toothpaste in a collapsible tube, introduced in 1896 in New York when it had previously been sold in glass jars since 1873.
  5. 5.  Pepsodent is a brand of toothpaste with a minty flavour derived from sassafras. The brand is owned by Unilever.  The history of Pepsodent goes back at least to the 1920s.  Irium is another word for sodium lauryl sulfate, an inexpensive ionic surfactant.
  6. 6.  The Pepsodent-Colgate ad war which started on August 11 with the release of Pepsodent’s latest TVC that blatantly used Colgate’s name in their ad claiming 130 per cent better protection, led Colgate to file a case in Delhi High Court on August 13, 2013. The court stated that the commercial does not “denigrate” the product of the competitor Colgate.
  7. 7. Comparative Advertising is permissible, with certain limitation.  “Honest practices”- mandatory for Comparative advertising : - Truthfully inform the consumer, and promotes market transparency.  Comparative Advertising is limited by Unfair Trade practices: - False or misleading facts disparaging the goods, services or trade of another person. In the electronic media the disparaging message is conveyed to the viewer by repeatedly showing the commercial everyday thereby ensuring that the viewers get clear message as the said commercial leaves an indelible impression in their mind. But, it must be noted that a mere opinion, which is not a statement of fact, would not attract Clause (x) of Section 36A (1).
  8. 8.  A tradesman is entitled to declare his goods to be the best in the world, even though the declaration is untrue.  He can also say that his goods are better than his competitor’s, even though such statement is untrue.  For the purpose of saying that his goods are the best in the world or his goods are better than his competitor’s he can even compare the advantages of his goods over the goods of others.  He, however, cannot while saying 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.  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.
  9. 9. ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES Advantages i. Increase in production ii. Self-improvement iii. Teamwork iv. Better quality at lower price. v. Greater potential for innovation vi. Stops monopolies Disadvantages a. Create unhealthy rivalries. b. False value c. Too much choice confusing the consumer. d. Bombarded with advertising with lots of companies. trying to differentiate themselves

×