The SAC considers that in order for there to be misleading advertising, it is necessary to have the following elements:
1. to establish the presence of advertising,
2. to mislead or be able to mislead the persons it reaches and
3. to be able to influence their economic behaviour, thus harming or likely to harm a competitor.
From the evidence gathered in this case, it is established that the fragrances used in the production of Martinez perfumes are actually produced by the French manufacturer Floressence and imported into Bulgaria, thus the statement “Fragrance. Made in France” is objectively true and not misleading, as the trader does not claim anywhere that the final perfume combinations and compositions as finished products were created in France.
The statement about "author's perfumery" is also objectively true, as the evidence gathered shows that the composition of each perfume was created by "Bio Aroma" Ltd. and not purchased ready-made from another manufacturer.
The claim that Martinez perfumes are an "alternative to the best price" of the world's most popular brands is not in itself misleading, as there is a well-established practice on the market to offer alternatives to popular perfumes, as consumers of this type of cosmetics are absolutely aware that they are buying replica version, not an original product. In this case, there is no evidence that the trader Martinez has taken other actions to impress consumers that it offers original products of world-famous brands.
As far as the allegations of the respondent companies are objectively true and do not mislead the consumers, the Commission for Protection of Competition and the Supreme Administrative Court consider that in this case, there is no violation of Art. 32 and 33 of the Competition Protection Act.
Пълен текст: Пълен текст