Background of the case:

The Commission received a complaint from M/s Chevron Pakistan Lubricants (Pvt) Limited (the ‘Complainant’) alleged that the superiority claims made by M/s Hi – Tech Lubricants Limited (the ‘Respondent No.1’) and M/s. Hi-Tech Blending (Pvt) Limited (the ‘Respondent No.2’) (collectively the ‘Respondents’) for prima facie violation of Section 10 of the Competition Act, 2010 (the ‘Act’).

Pursuant to the complaint in the instant matter an enquiry was initiated to probe into the matter, the enquiry concluded that the claims made by the Respondent in the instant matter without any reasonable basis are prima facie in violation of Section 10(1) of the Act, within the meaning and scope of Section 10(2) (a), 10(2)(b) and 10(2)(c) of the Act.

Issues:

a) Whether puffery is an acceptable defense under jurisprudence of Pakistan?

b) Whether the alleged claims actually fall in the category of puffery or not?

c) If claims are puffery, whether there arise question of reasonable basis related to product character, properties or suitability for use?

Foreign Judgments:

1) Timothy White v Gustav Mellin [1985] AC 154

2) American Italian Pasta Company v New World Pasta Company 371 F3d 387

3) De Beers Abrasive Products Ltd. V. International General Electric Co. of New York Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 972, page 6

4) Dabur India Limited v Emami Limited (2019 Ind Law Del 1345)

5) Marico Limited v Adani Wilmar Limited 199 2013 DLT 663, Para 16(a)

6) Oestreicher v Alienware Corp. 544 F. Supp. 2d 964, Pg.10

7) Annunziato v eMachines, Inc. 402 F. Supp. 2d 1133

8) REA Group Ltd v Fairfax Media Ltd [2017] FCA 91, para 85-86

9) SC Johnson Case

10) Newcal Industries v Ikon Office Solution 513 F.3d 1038 (2008)

11) Jainran Pty v Boyana [2008]

12) De Landtsheer Emmanuel SA v Comite Interprofessional du Vin de Champagne (Case C-381/05) [2007] 2 C.M.L.R. 43, para 51

13) Colgate Palmolive Company and another v Hindustan Unilever Limited 2014 (1) CLT 21, para 27-29

Order:

The Commission noted that the claims made by the Respondent fall within the purview puffery, therefore the findings of enquiry report were set aside and a case against the Respondent as per Section 10 of the Act cannot be made out and the relevant show cause notices are disposed of.