Jurisprudencia

  • Detalles del asunto
    • ID nacional: Juzgado de lo mercantil de Madrid Auto de 3 de septiembre de 2015
    • Estado miembro: España
    • Denominación común:link
    • Tipo de resolución: Resolución judicial, primer grado
    • Fecha de la resolución: 03/09/2015
    • Órgano jurisdiccional: Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Madrid
    • Asunto:
    • Demandante: ENERGIZER GROUP ESPAÑA, S.A.
    • Demandado: PROCTER & GAMBLE ESPAÑA, S.A.
    • Palabras clave: advertising, legal actions, misleading advertising, unfair commercial practices
  • Artículos de la Directiva
    Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 4
  • Nota preliminar
    1) Comparing the different features of the products is necessary so that comparative publicity is lawful.

    2) Exaggerations (but not exclusionary messages) are acceptable in publicity and do not qualify as misleading/ unfair publicity.
  • Hechos
    The plaintiff and the defendant commercialize razors for men. They claim against each other for different advertisement messages, which they consider misleading publicity.
  • Cuestión jurídica
    1) Is it licit comparative publicity that where the products are compared in general?

    2) Do exaggerations qualify as misleading publicity?
  • Decisión

    Some of the plaintiff and the defendant's messages qualify as misleading or unfair comparative publicity, as the case may be. The court orders that they cease using said messages in any publicity and to publish the decision in the media.

    Texto completo: Texto completo

  • Asuntos relacionados

    No hay resultados disponibles

  • Literatura jurídica

    No hay resultados disponibles

  • Resultado
    The court declares illicit some of the messages used by each party and order that they cease suing them in publicity. They are also ordered to publish the decision in the media.