Article 6 1. (f)
Annex I al1 4.
|National ID||MD 2013:3|
|Common name||MD 2013:3||Decision type||Court decision in appeal|
|Court||Marknadsdomstolen||Plaintiff(s)||Sveriges Begravningsbyråers Förbund|
|Court translation||The Swedish Market Court||Defendant(s)||Looströms Begravningsbyrå AB|
|Keywords||administrative authority, authorisation, endorsement, health and safety, misleading advertising, misleading commercial practices, rights of the trader|
+ Expand all
Claiming in an advertisement for funeral services that the trader is “authorized” to deliver such services, without the trader having obtained the mandatory valid authorization, constitutes a misleading commercial practice but does not constitute a blacklisted commercial practice.
The defendant had previously offered funeral services as an authorized trader.
However, at the time of the contested advertisements (still for funeral services), the trader was no longer under the supervision of the private body issuing the authorization.
Does claiming in an advertisement for funeral services that the trader is “authorized” to deliver such services, without the trader having obtained the mandatory valid authorization, constitute a misleading or blacklisted commercial practice?
The court first considered that the trader used to be an authorized trader of funeral services.
The court then noted that the blacklist should not be extensively interpreted and therefore found that the advertising practice did not constitute a blacklisted commercial practice.
The court however found that the information of the authorization was misleading and likely to materially distort the economic behavior of the average consumer and therefore constituted a misleading commercial practice.
|URL Decision||Decision full text|
The marketing was found to constitute a misleading commercial practice and the plaintiff was granted its request.
|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.|