Hello I have a presentation to make (around 15-20 slides in power point) It’s about Gillettte vs Everready battery. What happened What was decided and why it is importatant. The actual case
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2000/167.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=eveready
questions: What was the case what was the decision why this case is important in todays environment and summury are attached Can you do it ? ‘
MISLEADING OR DECEPTIVE CONDUCT
The battle of the bunnies — batteries ad runs flat
A comparative advertising campaign for batteries has been found to be misleading and
deceptive in contravention of sec 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974.
The applicant, Eveready, was a manufacturer of batteries and objected to a comparative
advertising campaign run by the respondent, Gillette. Gillette ran a series of advertisements,
primarily on television, to promote its Duracell brand of batteries.
The television advertisements depicted two teams of bunnies playing soccer. The message
conveyed was that one team which was powered by Duracell batteries outlasted the other
team which was powered by other unidentified batteries. The Duracell team scored four goals
while the other team collapsed on the field. In all the advertisements there was a
representation that Duracell batteries “last four times longer” or “up to four times longer”
than the opposition. There were also representations that Duracell batteries “last four times
longer” or “up to four times longer” than ordinary batteries. In small print, the words
“ordinary batteries = zinc carbon batteries” appeared in sub-text.
Eveready submitted that Gillette had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in
contravention of sec 52 of the Trade Practices Act. Eveready submitted that the Duracell
advertising led consumers to think that the comparison being made was between Duracell
batteries and the batteries of every other manufacturer. Duracell submitted that its advertising
would have been understood by consumers as invoking a comparison between its batteries,
which were all alkaline batteries, and zinc carbon batteries. Eveready manufactured both
alkaline batteries and zinc carbon batteries.
It was not in dispute that alkaline technology was more advanced than zinc carbon
technology; that Duracell batteries, being alkaline, would, like Eveready’s own alkaline
batteries, outlast Eveready’s zinc carbon batteries; and that Duracell batteries did not last four
times longer than Eveready’s alkaline batteries.
Lindgren J found in favour of Eveready. His Honour found that the commercials clearly
invited a comparison between Duracell and competing brands. Most viewers would fail to
read the small subtext “ordinary batteries = zinc carbon batteries”. Most of those that did
would be unlikely to attach any importance to it and would not appreciate the distinction
between “alkaline” and “zinc carbon” batteries. The words “lasts up to four times longer”
would lead most viewers to think that all Duracell batteries could be shown as a matter of
objective fact to last “up to four times longer” than comparable batteries of competing
manufacturers.
Since the purpose of the commercial was to influence consumers to choose Duracell batteries
in preference to the batteries of other manufacturers, the comparison was with products which
represented an alternative or substitute for the viewer. If one looked at the comparison as
against all other manufacturers in general, the commercial was misleading because “up to
four times longer” at least signified that in one instance “four times longer” was attained, yet
Duracell batteries did not last four times longer than the same size and type battery of any
other manufacturer on any test. Even if one looked at the comparison as being in relation to a
particular manufacturer, say Eveready, the television commercials were still misleading in
relation to a number of classes of batteries.
Even if the Court had concluded that the commercials were devoid of any meaning at all, they
would have been misleading or deceptive nevertheless. The words “lasts up to four times
longer” held out to the viewer that Duracell batteries offered a meaningful advantage over
competing brands. The specificity of the words was inconsistent with the nature of advertising
puff. It was misleading and deceptive to appear to a reasonable television viewer to be saying
something meaningful on which the viewer was invited to rely as a basis for action, when
only a degree of analysis foreign to the realities of the market place would show the viewer
that what was said was meaningless Everready vs Gillette