Wilkinson uses the following text on its advertising for razorblades: "NEW. Shaves better than MACH3". Is such advertising allowed? Not in this case. Energizer Group markets 'Hydro' razor blades under the brand name Wilkinson. Competitor Gillette also sells razorblades, called MACH3. To increase market share, Wilkinson advertises for their Hydro razorblades with the text: "Shaves better than MACH3." Thus, Wilkinson uses the brandname of Gillette. It also states its product is better than that of Gillette. Comparative advertising.
Gillette was not happy and took Wilkinson to court. The claim "the BEST SKIN SHAVE for you" - according to the court - is to be considered advertising language. Wilkinson may continue to use this wording. Gillette advertises its own products for years under the slogan "The best a man can get". Gillette states that it is not a superiority claim. Hence, this also applies to the claim of Wilkinson. The judge found that Wilkinson is not clear why the Hydro (supposedly) is better than MACH3. Wilkinson did not compare the HYDRO3 and MACH3 in an objective and verifiable manner. Thus: infringement of the trademark rights of Gillette by Wilkinson, according to the judge. Is that correct? To conclude for a trademark infringement, the judge should always establish what specific brand function is infringed. In this case, the judge did not explain this. Outcome of this procedure? Wilkinson can no longer say that HYDRO5 shaves better than MACH3. Something tells me that appeal will follow..
Daan van Eek, comparative advertising specialist
|
office Emerald House Jozef Israëlskade 48-G Amsterdam, the Netherlands t +31 (0)20 - 305 3066 www.hoogenhaak.nl |
post PO Box 76780 1070 KB Amsterdam e info@hoogenhaak.nl f +31 (0)20 - 305 3069 chamber of commerce 34314579 |
Wilkinson uses the following text on its advertising for razorblades: "NEW. Shaves better than MACH3". Is such advertising allowed? Not in this case. Energizer Group markets 'Hydro' razor blades under the brand name Wilkinson. Competitor Gillette also sells razorblades, called MACH3. To increase market share, Wilkinson advertises for their Hydro razorblades with the text: "Shaves better than MACH3." Thus, Wilkinson uses the brandname of Gillette. It also states its product is better than that of Gillette. Comparative advertising.
Gillette was not happy and took Wilkinson to court. The claim "the BEST SKIN SHAVE for you" - according to the court - is to be considered advertising language. Wilkinson may continue to use this wording. Gillette advertises its own products for years under the slogan "The best a man can get". Gillette states that it is not a superiority claim. Hence, this also applies to the claim of Wilkinson. The judge found that Wilkinson is not clear why the Hydro (supposedly) is better than MACH3. Wilkinson did not compare the HYDRO3 and MACH3 in an objective and verifiable manner. Thus: infringement of the trademark rights of Gillette by Wilkinson, according to the judge. Is that correct? To conclude for a trademark infringement, the judge should always establish what specific brand function is infringed. In this case, the judge did not explain this. Outcome of this procedure? Wilkinson can no longer say that HYDRO5 shaves better than MACH3. Something tells me that appeal will follow..
Daan van Eek, comparative advertising specialist