Article 5 1.
|Common name||Decision type||Court decision, first degree|
|Court||Markkinaoikeus (Helsinki)||Plaintiff(s)||The Consumer Ombudsman|
|Court translation||The Market Court (Helsinki)||Defendant(s)||Keittiöjätti Oy|
|Keywords||advertisement, combined offers, misleading advertising, product marketing|
+ Expand all
Emphasizing the value of the additional benefit in an advertisement in such way that the additional benefit dominates the advertisement, is unfair.
The defendant had advertised its products by offering an additional benefit together with the actual product, and by indicating the value of the additional benefit in the old currency (the Finnish mark). This way, the advertisement created the impression that the additional beneft was more valuable than it actually was.
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had to be prohibited:
(1) from offering to the consumer an additional benefit which exceeds 10 euros, if the amount of the benefit was not advertised in euros;
(2) from offering to the consumer an additional benefit, if the amount of the benefit is not simultaneously notified in a clear and easily noticeable manner; and
(3) from using additional benefits in an advertisement in such way that the presentation of the additional benefit dominates the main product.
Is it unfair in an advertisement to emphasize the value of an additional benefit that accompanies the main product?
The court considered that by emphasizing the additional benefit in the advertisement, the additional benefit dominated the advertisement. This was considered unfair.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The plaintiff’s request was granted. The court imposed a conditional fine of 50.000 EUR.
|There is no events for this case.|
|National ID||Common Name||Subject||Country||Link type|
|There is no related cases for this case.|
|There is no Legal Literature for this case.|