Retspraksis

  • Sagsoplysninger
    • Nationalt ID-nr.: H.D. 30. april 2015 i sag 267/2013 (1. afd.)
    • Medlemsstat: Danmark
    • Almindeligt anvendt navn:link
    • Afgørelsestype: Afgørelse fra højesteret
    • Afgørelsesdato: 30/04/2015
    • Retsinstans: Højesteret
    • Emne:
    • Sagsøger: Rockwool A/S
    • Sagsøgt: Papiruld Danmark A/S
    • Nøgleord: comparative advertising, evidence, misleading advertising
  • Direktivets artikler
    Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 2, (b) Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 4 Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 4, (a) Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 4, (b) Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 4, (c) Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 4, (d) Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 4, (e) Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 4, (f) Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 4, (g) Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 4, (h)
  • Indledende note
    (1) It is not sufficient to render probable the statements used in marketing in order for it not to be misleading advertisement when the courts demand evidence as to the accuracy of the claims furnished.

    (2) It is not sufficient to render probable the statements used in comparative advertising in order for it to be permissible when the courts demand evidence as to the accuracy of the claims furnished.

    (3) The requirements for documentation of statements are not absolute as they vary according to the circumstances of each case.
  • Fakta
    Both the defendant and the plaintiff were producers of building insulation materials. The defendant had engaged in a marketing campaign in which it made several statements regarding the abilities of its own products and compared them to the plaintiff's products.
  • Juridisk spørgsmål
    (1) Is it sufficient to render probable the statements used in marketing in order for it not to be misleading advertisement when the courts demand evidence as to the accuracy of the claims furnished?

    (2) Is it sufficient to render probable the statements used in comparative advertising in order for it to be permissible when the courts demand evidence as to the accuracy of the claims furnished?

    (3) Are the requirements for documentation of statements absolute?
  • Afgørelse

    The court stated that the wording of Sections 3(3) (now Section 13) and 5(2) (now Section 21(2)) of the Marketing Practices Act, the preparatory work behind the provisions as well as the directives which they implement (specifically, Directive 2006/114/EC art. 4 and Directive 2005/29 art. 12) had to be interpreted to mean that the documentation requirement for statements used in marketing cannot be fulfilled by merely rendering them probable and that the specific requirements varied in accordance with the circumstances of each case.

    URL: http://domstol.fe1.tangora.com/media/-300016/files/267-2013.pdf

    Hele teksten: Hele teksten

  • Relaterede sager

    Ingen resultater

  • Retslitteratur

    Ingen resultater

  • Resultat
    The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff.