Simple presentation for Law

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

Save Time On Research and Writing
Hire a Pro to Write You a 100% Plagiarism-Free Paper.
Get My Paper

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

Save Time On Research and Writing
Hire a Pro to Write You a 100% Plagiarism-Free Paper.
Get My Paper

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

Still stressed from student homework?
Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order your essay today and save 25% with the discount code LAVENDER