A smooth shave is the logical purpose of a razor blade but what does the consumer think of “The best shave for your skin"? Is that a false advertising slogan or precisely an argument to buy the Wilkinson Hydro 5 razor blades? Gillette believes that this entails comparison with its razor blades. The interlocutory court does not want to go down this road: this is ´puffery’. The text is too general and not comparable advertising. Gillette did not demonstrate that the consumer sees this as an actual product characteristic. However, we believe that the burden of proof of whether there is puffery lies with the advertiser. This would mean that Wilkinson has the troublesome task of proving how the consumer sees such an expression.
On the Hydro 5 packaging Wilkinson states: “Shaves BETTER than MACH 3”. This comparison falls short according to the court: it is not clear what is better: fewer cuts, smoother around the chin, smoother shave? The reports submitted by Wilkinson were inadequately convincing. I do not find the court's reasoning flawless; a general claim “better than…" is legally permissible but it must be true with regard to all aspects that the consumer thinks “shaves better” refers to. If the Hydro 5 razorblades are only superior in one aspect, the claim must be limited to that and in no uncertain terms.
The interlocutory court therefore found that the advertising is improper and ruled that Wilkinson is infringing the Community Mark MACH. A pan-European ban followed: all Dutch texts and stickers must be removed within three weeks.
Ebba Hoogenraad
|
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 |
A smooth shave is the logical purpose of a razor blade but what does the consumer think of “The best shave for your skin"? Is that a false advertising slogan or precisely an argument to buy the Wilkinson Hydro 5 razor blades? Gillette believes that this entails comparison with its razor blades. The interlocutory court does not want to go down this road: this is ´puffery’. The text is too general and not comparable advertising. Gillette did not demonstrate that the consumer sees this as an actual product characteristic. However, we believe that the burden of proof of whether there is puffery lies with the advertiser. This would mean that Wilkinson has the troublesome task of proving how the consumer sees such an expression.
On the Hydro 5 packaging Wilkinson states: “Shaves BETTER than MACH 3”. This comparison falls short according to the court: it is not clear what is better: fewer cuts, smoother around the chin, smoother shave? The reports submitted by Wilkinson were inadequately convincing. I do not find the court's reasoning flawless; a general claim “better than…" is legally permissible but it must be true with regard to all aspects that the consumer thinks “shaves better” refers to. If the Hydro 5 razorblades are only superior in one aspect, the claim must be limited to that and in no uncertain terms.
The interlocutory court therefore found that the advertising is improper and ruled that Wilkinson is infringing the Community Mark MACH. A pan-European ban followed: all Dutch texts and stickers must be removed within three weeks.
Ebba Hoogenraad