Comparative advertising: a comparative legal study

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Date
1999-12
Authors
Janse van Rensburg, Adelheid
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
University of the Free State
Abstract
English: The concept, comparative advertising, is defined as a technique of advertising involving direct/indirect comparisons between goods or services of competitors or of other business enterprises in the course of trade or industry. It is submitted that this concept should be extended to also include comparisons between goods or services belonging solely to the advertiser. The research with regard to the USA included the common law, the trade commissions and section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. The common law pertaining to unfair competition could be relied upon in the case of injurious falsehoods . . Haydon submits that a commercial could be typified and banned as unfair competition whenever a competitor publishes a disparaging representation about the Plaintiff's goods or services which is likely to deceive or mislead prospective purchasers to the plaintiff's likely commercial detriment. A plaintiff can also take recourse under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, when inter alia a false or misleading description of fact or false or misleading representation of fact was made and which would be likely to cause confusion or mistake etc. A plaintiff who takes recourse under this section does, however, bears a heavy burden of proof. The Federal Trade Commission's Code encourages comparative advertising and the FTC only acts in the public interest where "a reasonable consumer is likely to be misled and that the advertisement played a material role in the consumer's purchasing choice." The International Trade Commission does not encourage comparative advertising and this commission receives complaints from plaintiffs who were prejudiced by foreign competitors' advertisements. It thus seems that comparative advertising of a truthful and honest nature is favoured in the USA, as in the public interest, subject to reasonableness and after consideration of the respective interests involved. It seems as though the European countries can be divided according to theirattitudes towards comparative advertising as follows: 1. Liberal policies towards comparative advertising: United Kingdom and Portugal 2. Allow comparative advertising subject to restrictions: France, Spain and Denmark 3. Explicitly ban comparative advertising: Belgium and Luxembourg 4. Enacted legislation which makes comparative advertising nearly impossible: Italy and Switzerland 5. No clear legal provisions: The Netherlands and Greece. The United Kingdom has taken a more liberal stance towards comparative advertising during the last few years, as can be seen from the judgements given in the Barclays Bank-case, the Vodafone Group-case and the British Telecommunications-case. The courts used the objective test to determine if there was 'honest use' of the registered trade marks. The court found in the Vodafone Group-case that a plaintiff has to show that "the comparison is significantly misleading on an objective basis to a substantial portion of the reasonable audience." The United Kingdom is, however, a member of the European Union and it is envisaged that this country will adopt a stricter approach towards comparative advertising in future due to the European Directive on Comparative Advertising. In the United Kingdom comparative advertising issues are mainly successfully dealt with by self-regulatory bodies. The European Directive on Comparative Advertising sets out a few requirements to which a comparative advertisement must adhere before such will be allowed. The member states have to adopt legislation to accommodate these requirements. It is envisaged that most of these countries will interpret these requirements in a strict sense and will accordingly have a more conservative approach towards comparative advertising. The German law distinguishes between personal, imitative and critical comparative advertising. It seems as though direct comparative advertising (presupposing identifiable competitors) is lawful should such advertisements constitute a truthful comparison of product categories, relying on related and substantiated merits that are not misleading. Other forms of comparative advertising whereby competitors are not identified or identifiable or involved at all seems to be lawful, however, on condition that such advertisements are truthful, factual and not misleading. . The Japanese culture has not taken kindly to comparative advertising in the past. It does, however, appear as if the younger generation is more favourably disposed thereto. Thus, this negative attitude towards comparative advertising may change towards the better in the future. Unlawful comparative advertising appears to be more comprehensive in SA than in the UK and the USA, but possibly similar to that in Germany. The common law, obviously including unlawful competition, as well as statutory enactments of relevance are comprehensive to the extent that comparative advertising may be a perilous activity in South Africa as far as the unwary are concerned. It is submitted that section 34(1 )(c) of the Trade Marks Act (the so called 'dilution section') should be amended to read: "oo. be unfairly detrimental to ... " with a view to the promotion of lawful and fair comparative advertising. Although comparative advertising lends itself to abuse, it is submitted that there are adequate legal provisions with a view to combating any related abuse despite the fact that implementation generally needs to be improved. The self-regulatory system can be used with success if it is conducted in a similar way to that of theUnited Kingdom. Also in view of the Bill of Rights, and the right to freedom of speech, comparative advertising should be allowed, subject to the restrictions as set out in section 36 of the Constitution. Consequently and also bearing in mind the benefits which may be derived from comparative advertising, it is finally submitted that the ASA's Code be amended in order to reflect a more positive attitude towards comparative advertising.
Afrikaans:Die begrip, vergelykende reklame, word gedefinieer as 'n advertensietegniek waar gebruik gemaak word van direkte of indirekte vergelykings tussen goedere of dienste van mededingers, of ander besighede, in die gewone loop van besigheid. Daar word aan die hand gedoen dat hierdie begrip uitgebrei word om ook vergelykings tussen goedere of dienste wat uitsluitlik aan die adverteerder (derhalwe een besigheid) behoort in te sluit. Tydens die studie is die gemenereg, die handelskommissies en die Lanham Wet van die Verenigde State van Amerika ondersoek. Haydon submiteer dat 'n advertensie geklassifiseer, en gevolglik verbied sal word, as dit 'n neerhalende voorstelling van die Eiser se goedere of dienste bevat, waar daar 'n moontlikheid bestaan dat sodanige voorstelling voornemende kliënte sal mislei of onder 'n wanindruk sal bring, en derhalwe moontlik sal lei daartoe dat die Eiser se besigheid benadeel word. 'n Eiser kan ook gebruik maak van artikel 43(a) van die Lanham Wet wanneer, inter alia, die Verweerder valse of misleidende voorstellings of valse of misleidende feite gebruik in 'n advertensie, wat tot gevolg kan hê dat kliënte verwar kan word. Daar rus egter 'n swaarder bewyslas op 'n Eiser wat wil steun op hierdie artikel. Die Federale Handelskommissie (Federal Trade Commission) is ten gunste van vergelykende reklame. Hierdie Kommissie sal slegs in die openbare belang optree en 'n vergelykende advertensie verbied, wanneer daar 'n moontlikheid bestaan dat 'n redelike verbruiker mislei kan word, en wanneer die advertensie 'n wesenlike rol gespeel het in die verbruiker se aankoopkeuse. Die Internasionale Handelskommissie (International Trade Commission) ontvang klagtes vanaf partye wat benadeel is as gevolg van advertensies van buitelandse mededingers. Gevolglik blyk dit dat vergelykende reklame wat eerlik is en gebaseer is op ware feite, toegelaat sal word in die VSA, synde in die openbare belang. Voormelde is egter onderworpe aan 'n redelikheidsvereiste sowel as die inagneming van die onderskeie belange wat betrokke is. Die Europese lande kan as volg geklassifiseer word: 1. Liberale beleid ten opsigte van vergelykende reklame: Verenigde Koninkryke, Portugal 2. Laat vergelykende reklame toe onderworpe aan sekere beperkings: Frankryk, Spanje en Denemarke 3. Verbied vergelykende reklame uitdruklik: België en Luxemburg 4. Wetgewing gepromulgeer wat dit bykans onmoontlik maak om van vergelykende reklame gebruik te maak: Italië en Switserland 5. Nie duidelike regsvoorskrifte: Die Nederlande en Griekeland Die Verenigde Koninkryke het die afgelope paar jaar 'n meer liberale siening ten opsigte van vergelykende reklame. Dit word weerspieel in die uitsprake in die Bare/ays Bank-saak, die Vodafone Group-saak en die British Te/eeommunieations-saak. Die howe het gebruik gemaak van 'n objektiewe toets ten einde te bepaal of daar eerlike gebruik gemaak is van geregistreerde handelsmerke. Aangesien die Verenigde Koninkryke egter 'n lid is van die Europese Unie word voorsien dat daar in die toekoms 'n strenger benadering gevolg sal word ten opsigte van vergelykende reklame, in toepassing van die "European Directive on Comparative Advertising". Voormelde Direktief stel sekere vereistes waaraan vergelykende reklame moet voldoen voordat dit aanvaar sal word in die lidlande. Daar word voorsien dat meeste van die lidlande hierdie vereistes eng sal interpreteer en derhalwe 'n konserwatiewe benadering ten opsigte van vergelykende reklame sal volg.Die Duitse reg onderskei tussen persoonlike, nabootsende en kritiese vergelykende reklame. Direkte vergelykende reklame (waar identifiseerbare mededingers voorveronderstel word) blyk toelaatbaar te wees indien dit enware vergelyking is van die produkte kategorie en gebaseer word op verbandhoudende en bewese meriete, wat nie misleidend is nie. Indirekte vergelykende reklame blyk toelaatbaar te wees op voorwaarde dat die advertensies eerlik, feitlik en nie misleidend moet wees nie. Die Japanese kultuur het in die verlede en negatiewe houding ten opsigte van vergelykende reklame ingeneem. Dit wil egter voorkom asof die jonger generasie meer ten guste daarvan is en derhalwe mag die posisie van vergelykende reklame in die land in die toekoms verbeter. Onregmatige vergelykende reklame blyk meer omvattende te wees in Suid-Afrika as in die Verenigde Koninkryke en die VSA, maar moontlik soortgelyk aan die in Duitsland. Die gemenereg, sowel as die toepaslike wetgewing, is omvattend en en adverteerder moet deeglik kennis neem van die vereistes ten einde te verseker dat hy/sy binne die grense van die reg bly. Daar word voorts aan die hand gedoen dat artikel 34(1 )(c) van die Handelsmerke Wet gewysig word ten einde te lees: Cl ••• of onbillik nadelig sal wees". Alhoewel vergelykende reklame ditself leen tot misbruik, word aan die hand gedoen dat daar voldoende regsvoorskrifte in die verband bestaan om sodanige misbruik teen te staan. Die implementering daarvan moet egter verbeter word. lndien self-regulering sou toegepas word op en soortgelyke wyse as in die Verenigde Koninkryke kan dit en effektiewe stelsel vir die beheer van vergelykende reklame daarstel. In die lig van die Handves van Menseregte, en die reg op vryheid van spraak, moet vergelykende reklame toegelaat word, onderworpe aan die beperkings soos uiteengesit in artikel 36 van die Grondwet. Gevolglik word aan die hand gedoen dat, indien die voordele van vergelykende reklame in gedagte gehou word, dit gepas sal wees indien die Kode van die Advertensie Standaarde Owerheid gewysig word ten einde 'n meer positiewe houding ten opsigte van vergelykende reklame te weerspieël.
Description
Keywords
Comparative law, Advertising laws, Dissertation (LL.M. (Mercantile Law))--University of the Free State, 1999
Citation