SlideShare verwendet Cookies, um die Funktionalität und Leistungsfähigkeit der Webseite zu verbessern und Ihnen relevante Werbung bereitzustellen. Wenn Sie diese Webseite weiter besuchen, erklären Sie sich mit der Verwendung von Cookies auf dieser Seite einverstanden. Lesen Sie bitte unsere Nutzervereinbarung und die Datenschutzrichtlinie.
SlideShare verwendet Cookies, um die Funktionalität und Leistungsfähigkeit der Webseite zu verbessern und Ihnen relevante Werbung bereitzustellen. Wenn Sie diese Webseite weiter besuchen, erklären Sie sich mit der Verwendung von Cookies auf dieser Seite einverstanden. Lesen Sie bitte unsere unsere Datenschutzrichtlinie und die Nutzervereinbarung.
A plain old bulleted list can get boring, so use graphics to liven it up. An image that conveys what you’re saying in visual format (like this diagram) can reinforce your ideas in the audience’s mind.
This slide template can show steps, stages or how various elements or factors combine to make one key result or goal. For instance, you could show how various departments in your business work together to make the sale, how key customer groups will all purchase your product, or how different funding sources will provide the total you need. This slide template also makes an excellent concluding slide for your presentation, enabling you to graphically sum up your key points into one final whole.
I often use color and graphics to add excitement to a presentation. Just because it’s about business doesn’t mean it has to be staid—you need movement, energy and color, as in this slide template. Use this slide template to illustrate relationships or processes. In this slide, I used it to show how demographic trends create a new consumer group and what products that group purchases. You could also use it to illustrate your sales cycle or relationships among departments in your company.
Comparative Advertisement and Product Disparagement
Objective Methodology Hypothesis
The objective of the research is to bring out the liberties given to the companies to in order
to promote their goods though not disregarding the goods of its rival partners.
Towards the end of the research we will be able to clearly understand the difference
between comparative advertising and product disparagement: what is permissible and what
is prohibited. We will also be comparing the laws established in various countries regarding
comparative advertisements. The sole motto of the research is to explore, describe, explain,
compare, evaluate, criticize and draw inferences to bring about reforms if necessary or to
simply commend the existing system.
In sight of the present topic for research, mainly case laws, conventions and most
importantly laws of the land will be taken into consideration to frame an outline of the entire
It can be hypothesized that comparative advertising can lead to stronger competition
however one fact remains undoubtedly accepted that disparaging products is illegal.
or Not ?
Here is a look at a case study:
In the case, ITC Ltd. v. Punchgini (482 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2007) ITC operated a
“Bukhara” restaurant in India and sold “Dal Bukhara” packaged foods in the U.S.
Punchgini operated a “Bukhara Grill” restaurant in the U.S. ITC’s claim was that the
defendants implied that their restaurant was affiliated with ITC’s products and this
constituted as false advertising. The lower court dismissed ITC’s claims for lack of any
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed this decision and held that
ITC’s mere plans of opening “Bukhara” restaurants in the U.S. did not give rise to any
claim. Since Punchgini (the defendants) were not comparing their restaurants to ITC’s
packaged food products, ITC’s use of “Dal Bukhara” name on its products, did not
exactly amount to any claim of false advertising.
In conclusion, it is one of those concerns where the legal team works in close
connection with the marketing team. It is imperative to keep a close watch on this
issue so as to prevent any misuse by defamation or any innuendo of negativity. This
has ironically disturbed the credibility and innovative use of advertising. This
negativity, surely brings better recall to a potential consumer, but in the hindsight, it
can differ from person to person.
The New German Law Against Unfair Competition
Came into force on 8th July 2004 (Revised)
For the advancement of the German law with relation to EC laws
Section 3-6 talks about the unfair competition
1. Section 3 – Defines unfair competition
2. Section 4- components of unfair competition
3. Section 5 – Misleading Advertisements
4. Section 6 – Comparative Advertisements
Remedies Available Under This Act
Section 8 – If the reputation of the plaintiff is harmed the suit can be
maintained in three ways –
• Loss of Profit
• Plaintiff can demand for a legal license
• Claim for the actual damage
Law In INDIA
c) Reference to the
major brand instead of
referring to the competitor
by name directly, but such
reference makes the
customer recognise the
a) Reference to a
There are different
methods of Comparative
Advertising which are
usually taken up by the
traders to promote their
products or services,
b) Reference to a
competitor’s trade mark;
Colgate v. Pepsodent CS (OS) No. 1588 of 2013
Dismissing Colgate Palmolive India Ltd’s plea for interim injunction
against HUL, Justice S Muralidhar said, “ The court is not
persuaded to hold at this stage that the impugned TV
advertisement or the printed advertisement by the HUL is
disparaging of or denigrating the product.
Tata Press Ltd v. MTNL & ORS
Comparative advertisment is often supported on
the basis of the argument established in this
case which states freedom of speech as stated
under article 19(1) of the constitution of India.
Duracell International Ltd V. Ever Ready Private Ltd
• Ever Ready (Pty) ltd had lodged a complaint with the A.S.A in 2004
protesting the Duracell advertisement and claim that Duracell batteries
last up to “6 times longer than the ordinary zinc carbon batteries.”
• Ever Ready (Pty) Ltd provided evidence in the form of the tests
conducted by the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) that the
Duracell clain is untrue and misleading to the south african consumer.
• As a result the case was sent to legal arbitration
• The arbitrators finding was “ Ever Ready’s complaint is valid and
Duracell’s claim is invalid and misleading to the public..”
Section 29 (8) of the Trademarks act 1999 states that “ a
registered trademark is infringed by any advertising of the
trademark if such advertising
• Takes unfair advantage of and is contrary to honest
practices in industrial and commercial matters
• Is detrimental to its distinctive character or
• Is against the reputation of the trademark
Section 29 (8) and section 30 (1) of the trademarks act, are adequate to
address issues related to trademarks infringement, made in the garb of
Judicial pronouncements on the issue have also made it clear that there is no
harm in comparing your goods with those of a competitor, but the comparison
should be fair and should not bring disrepute to the competitor’s products or
trademark, i.e. comparative advertising leading to product disparagement is
The position is more or less the same in almost all the countries, which allow
use of another’s trademark in comparative advertising.
•Disparaging Advertising and the Media War
•Comparative advertisement and product
disparagement vis-à-vis Trademark Law 1999
•Law comparing advertisement and
• But Names Won’t Necessarily Hurt Me:
Considering the Effect of Disparaging
Statements on Reputation
•The tort of disparagement and the
developing first amendment
•Disparaging advertising (IIPRD)
•Disparaging advertisement ( Legal blog)
•Comparative advertising ( LawMantra)