Article 14 3. al1 al1 al1
||National ID||President of the Commercial Court of Nivelles, 15 October 2008|
|Common name||Decision type||Court decision, first degree|
|Court||Président du Tribunal de Commerce de Nivelles||Plaintiff(s)||DIP-Well SA|
|Court translation||President of the Commercial Court of Nivelles||Defendant(s)||Aqua Vital SA|
|Keywords||B2B, comparative advertising, misleading advertising, product characteristics|
+ Expand all
Making false statements with regard to a competitor and/or the nature, the origin and the quality of its products can constitute a misleading comparative advertising or a denigrating advertisement.
Defendant and plaintiff are companies active in the supply of drinking water. The defendant approached potential clients and tried to persuade them not to trade with the plaintiff stating false claims concerning the plaintiff.
The defendant falsely mentioned in its advertising emails to potential clients that the water offered by the plaintiff consisted of chemically treated tap water and that the plaintiff had repeatedly withdrawn its products.
Does making false statements with regard to the nature, the origin and the quality of products of a competitor, constitute a misleading comparative advertising?
The court confirmed that the advertising emails were to be considered as misleading comparative advertising, as it was misleading with regard to the nature and origin of the compared products.
The court also held that falsely stating that a competitor had to withdraw its products in the past, is clearly denigrating advertising.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The court decided that the advertising email issued by the defendant was misleading and denigrating.
|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.|