Advertising dispute between Henkel and Procter & Gamble goes on
With decision number 89 of 14 November 2013, the Advertising and Marketing Communication Self-Regulation Authority (the Jury) ruled again on a misleading advertising dispute between Henkel and Procter & Gamble, respectively producers of detergents named Dixan and Dash.
The dispute started after Procter & Gamble launched an advertising campaign where it was stated that ‘a cup of Dash removes stains as much as a cup and a half of the product of the main competitor’. The Italian Competition Authority (ICA), with decision number 24522 of 18 September 2013, upheld Henkel’s request and ruled that the diffusion of the Dash advertisement amounts to an unfair commercial practice. ICA consequently banned the advertisement and condemned Procter & Gamble to a €100,000 (£83,000) fine.
Afterwards, Henkel launched a new advertising campaign aimed to inform the public of ICA’s decision against Procter & Gamble’s unfair advertising…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the NCTM briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from NCTM
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from NCTM
Geographical indications (GIs) for foodstuffs are protected under European law, while GIs for non-foodstuffs are not protected under EU law. Should we keep this difference?
In the last couple of days, the Financial Times and The New York Times have published important articles on Russia and China. The articles don’t pull their punches.
Analysis from The Lawyer
Being sent to London on secondment is a prized opportunity for associates in European firms