Through various channels (including news papers, magazines, websites, posters, barriers in public parking lots, and gadgets such as ice scrapers and calendars), the defendant made publicity for the car insurance services of its foreign affiliate.
The plaintiff argued that:
(1) the publicity was misleading, because the official insurance registration number of the defendant was not mentioned on every type of publicity;
(2) the defendant misled the consumer with respect to its identity and nature, because the publicity did not explicitly mention that the defendant acts as an insurance intermediary, promoting the insurance services of an affiliate.