“Comparative Advertising- Worldwide Trends” was this year’s conference theme at the Annual General Meeting of the ADLAW International, held on 12th November, 2010 at India Habitat Centre, New Delhi. Sspeakers from eleven member firms made presentations, providing valuable insights and perspectives on the subject.  

The conference commenced with Shivendra Kundra from Kundra & Bansal welcoming representative global firms and a gathering of attendees from corporate and judicial forums. This was followed by an “Introduction to Adlaw” by Charles Swan, Chairperson, Adlaw International.

Moving forward, the presentation by the key note speaker, Himmat Singh, Senior Manager, Marketing, Nestle India, took the audience through a journey of the changing advertising standards from the mid 90’s to date, clearly highlighting that while in the early days of comparative advertising, a direct mention of a competitive product or company in an advertisement was rare, the advertiser today appeared to be willing to walk the tight rope. Subtlety had given way to a more expressive form of comparison, and spoofs were becoming common. The Speaker put on view, the business perspective on marketing, which may on many occasion(s) clash with the guidelines prescribed by the law of the land. The various advertisements that had appeared on the Indian Television (that were part of the presentation), clearly revealed the changing face of the advertising industry.

The next speaker, Riccardo Rossotto from R&P Legal, Italy, talked about the Ruling of the Office of Fair Trading and Self Disciplinary Committee, which confirmed that “in a market composed of a number of trademarks and products” comparative advertising “… CANNOT imply the obligation to extend the comparison to all the competitors or to specific competitors, when the criteria, the limitations and the purpose of the comparison are obvious to the end consumers”.

Brenda Pritchard from Gowlings Lafleur Henderson LLP, Canada discussed the ways adopted by companies to circumvent the law and push for advertisements that were challenged and upheld by the Courts as being ‘false and misleading’. ‘The Dead Bunny Case’ was an interesting illustration of the various Do’s and Don’ts that ought to be kept in mind prior to pushing a comparative advertisement, or seeking remedy against one.

Comparative Advertising: In France it’s complicated…….was presented by Coblence & Associes, listing the positive and negative requirements for such advertisements. The Speaker, Jean-Philippe Sala-Martin, took the audience through case law and ad visuals, emphasizing the varied scenarios that prevail.

The coffee break was announced……. time had certainly flown by!!  This was a good opportunity for everyone to informally chat and discuss the events of the morning.

The group quickly re-assembled and we got started with the next lot of presentations, quickly warming up to the topic. Willem Roos, Höcker Advocaten, Netherlands, preferred an impromptu dialogue on the law and practice back home, as he discussed the Glorix/Harpic decision.  Willem gave away a prize to member of the audience for answering a question that he posed in relation to an advertisement.

Next up was Klaus Madsen, Bech Bruun, Denmark who tantalized all with the 25% less saturated fat in the Mars chocolate bar, taking audience feedback on whether the advertisement qualified as negative comparison with other chocolate brands in UK.

Pawel Chojecki, Łaszczuk & Wspólnicy, Poland Juicy story – does fruit work with sugar? The presentation by our Polish colleague related to advertisements by two competing companies in the fruit juice segment, wherein the advertisements were accused of being misleading, discrediting competitor and lacking objective comparison. The Court held that the advertisements were not permitted; the companies released modified advertisements.

Guillaume Fournier, from Meyer Lustenberger, Switzerland gave an account of comparative advertising in Switzerland, and how court decisions varied from case-to-case, depending on the advertising content and levels of comparison.

Closer home, Amit Bansal, educated the local audience with the law and principles of advertising in India as laid down by regulators and courts. Advertisements shown by the speaker, familar to the Indian audience was discussed by the panel as ‘on the edge’ and ‘grey’.

German Courts, in contrast are far stricter and advertisements more restrictive in content, as informed  by Christoph Kolonko, Kolonko & Dammeier, Germany  in his presentation, illustrating the same with advertisements revealing that comparative advertising is still not very common in Germany. Christoph’s presentaion had a funny twist with cheeky advertising by a newspaper brand.

Charles Swan, Swan Turton, London finished the round of presentations with a brief example from the aviation industry,  and then went on to propose a vote of thanks.

The presentations were followed by a round of questions from the audience. The conference closed with pre-lunch interaction beween the lawyers and other attendees, followed by lunch.