2023 CLD 114 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

VS S. 10---Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001), S. 39---Deceptive marketing practices---Rights conferred by registration of trade mark---Scope---Competition Commission is not concerned with whether a trademark logo has been registered or not but is rather concerned with the representation of its logo by an undertaking while advertising the product being deceptive in any manner---Even if an undertaking has a registered trademark logo under the relevant laws, it would not absolve any party from complying with the relevant provisions of S. 10 of the Competition Act, 2010. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2023 CLD 114 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTANBookmark this Case VS S. 28---Functions and powers of the Commission---Seeking advice from the Commission---Scope---Competition Commission is not a clearance agency to approve a certain advertisement/logo in terms of its compliance with competition law, however, the Commission can be contacted in an advisory role as per S. 28(1)(d) read with the guidelines in this regard. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2023 CLD 114 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTANBookmark this Case VS S. 10---Competition (General Enforcement) Regulations, 2007, Reglns. 30 & 32---Deceptive marketing practices---Commitments---Acceptance of commitments---Scope---Complainant alleged that the respondent had engaged in anti-competitive practice(s) by making a substantial and quantifiable claim regarding its product as "No. 1 Emulsion in Pakistan"---Contention of complainant was that such claim was not a mere puffery, being quantifiable claim that was false/misleading---Respondent agreed to rectify and address the concerns of the Commission---Validity---Presenting the impugned logo in the manner used was capable of misleading the ordinary consumer that respondent's emulsion was No. 1 in the emulsion paint market or that the product was better in ranking as a whole from the other competitors in the market---Such in turn, had the potential to harm the position and ranking of other players in the market, thereby giving the respondent an unearned competitive edge---Such certainly was capable of harming the business interest of other undertakings---Competition Commission, being satisfied with the respondent's commitment and compliance decided not to impose any penalty---Proceedings were disposed of accordingly. Head NotesCase Description

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 CLD