Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 3 Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 3

Advertising on a website and through a brochure claiming that a company is "the only specialised manufacturer of sanding machines in Bulgaria" creates the impression among customers that the company is the only manufacturer of sanding machines and there is no alternative to buying such products from another Bulgarian manufacturer.

If this statement and consequently the impression the customers have is wrong, then the advertising company receives a non-existent competitive advantage, which is able to create confusion among potential customers.

The manufacturer "Factory for sanding machines" AD. claims on its website that it is "the only specialised manufacturer of sanding machines in Bulgaria". This advertising statement is displayed in a highlighted yellow field on the website and is also contained in the company's advertising brochure, which is distributed both electronically and on paper in Bulgarian, Russian and English.

Another manufacturer of sanding machines which also operates in the Bulgarian market, "ZMM - Asenovgrad" Ltd., brought an action to the Commission for Protection of Competition, as it was affected by this advertising.

What impression does the advertising message "the only specialised manufacturer of sanding machines in Bulgaria" give the customers and can it be justified by the fact that the advertising company has high quality production equipment and trained specialists in the field of sanding machine production?

Can the advertiser "Factory for sanding machines" AD be acquitted with the argument that the website on which the advertisement is placed is registered in the name of another person who is not involved as a party in the proceedings before the Commission for Protection of Competition?

The advertising statement "Factory for sanding machines" AD is "the only specialised manufacturer of sanding machines in Bulgaria" gives customers the impression that the company is the only manufacturer of sanding machines, that only it can produce such products, and that there is no alternative to purchase such products from another Bulgarian manufacturer. The fact that there is at least one other manufacturer of sanding machines in Bulgaria makes the advertising statement untrue and therefore, misleading.

The Commission for Protection of Competition and the Supreme Administrative Court do not share the advertising company's thesis that advertising is not misleading because the advertising company is a highly specialised  manufacturer "with a focus" on sanding machines, uses the most innovative technology and has highly qualified specialists, as "ZMM - Asenovgrad" Ltd. also has specialised equipment and qualified staff and is an active competitor of the advertiser on the Bulgarian market. The Court did not respect the advertiser's argument that they had not violated the Law on Protection of Competition due to the fact that the site where the advertisement was placed was registered in the name of a natural person who had not been involved in the proceedings before the Commission for protection of competition. The Court considers that the domain is undoubtedly registered in favour of the advertiser, because through the site the company presents its products and   the site is listed in the advertiser's account in the commercial register, therefore  this is sufficient to impose a sanction for distributing misleading advertising.

URL: http://www.sac.government.bg/court22.nsf/d6397429a99ee2afc225661e00383a86/7bee927c63d97d44c225824000319f7e?OpenDocument

Пълен текст: Пълен текст

Няма налични резултати

Няма налични резултати

The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the Commission for Protection of Competition, which established a violation of the Law on Protection of Competition and imposed a property sanction on the advertiser.