Background of the Case:

CCP received a formal complaint from Reckitt Benckiser Pakistan Limited stating that the marketing campaign run by Colgate-Palmolive for its product Max APC was making deceptive/false claims i.e., ‘24 hours long lasting freshness,’ ‘99.9?cteria free,’ ‘Protects against cold and flu, skin infections, food poisoning,’ and that it kills 99.9 ?cteria from surfaces leaving floors and household surfaces clean, shiny and germ free, along with a disclaimer reading, ‘based on laboratory testing with concentrate usage.’ (the “Claims”)

Order:

The Commission held the Claims did not have any reasonable basis and were found to be deceptive under Section 10(1) of the Competition Act in terms of Section 10(2) thereof. The Claims are also likely to cause eventual dilution of the Complainant’s brand identity and goodwill which it had built over the years, as well as other competing undertakings who do not indulge in deceptive marketing practices. The effect of engaging in such practices is the diversion of customers to the Respondent’s products, thereby inflicting financial loses to the competitors, which is in violation of Section 10(2)(a) of the Competition Act.

The Commission imposed a penalty of PKR 10 million on the Respondent for running a deceptive marketing campaign, in violation of Section 10 of the Competition Act, and directed the Respondent to suitably modify its claims relating to Max APC and omit any misleading comparisons from its trade letter. The Respondent was reprimanded not to indulge in deceptive marketing practices in future to avoid stricter penal consequences.

CURRENT STATUS:

Colgate filed appeal before CAT challenging the order.