The plaintiff first demanded that the defendant shall be prohibited on pain of a fine in its marketing from presenting a commitment concerning a price differential payment, which gives a misleading impression, when unsubstantiated, about the most affordable products on the market to consumers. Furthermore, it gives a misleading impression that the products marketed by the defendant are also available in other competing stores. The defendant had not reliably proved that the products were actually the most affordable products on the market. In reality, only 60 per cent of the products marketed by the defendant were available in other stores.
Second, the plaintiff demanded that the defendant shall be prohibited from comparing its selling price to the recommended retail price provided by the importer, because this gives a misleading impression about the most affordable price provided by the defendant on the market. The products have actually been marketed for a long period of time at the same price on the market and, therefore, the discount is not real.
Third, the plaintiff demanded that the defendant shall not be allowed to present a false statement to the extent that the product on sale is offered only for a short period of time at the discounted price, when in reality the same product is offered at the same price after a few days from the said period.