Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

“(i) The claim that the Mortein product has India's fastest and most powerful formula is misleading and violative of the ASCI Code
(ii) The claim that the Mortein product provides 100% protection even after switch-off is misleading and violative of the ASCI Code
(iii) The claim that Mortein is 'More Safe' is misleading and violative of ASCI Code.” 3.10. Upon the receipt of the complaint, the plaintiff had sent a detailed reply on 31.05.2023 with supporting materials. Upon receipt of the reply from the plaintiff, the first defendant sought a technical report from one of the Technical experts Prof.Jayesh Bellare. The said expert provided a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A.Nos.563 & 564 of 2023 draft opinion to the first defendant and a copy was also mailed to the plaintiff on 05.06.2023. The following observations have been made:-
“(i) With regard to the claim 'India's Fastest and Most Powerful Formula**' - the FTC panel of the 1st defendant observed that the claim was qualified with a disclaimer to mention, 'As tested against the leading competitor refills in Mortein device on culex quinquefasiatus mosquitoes'. The FTC panel of the 1st defendant discussed that the complainant and the advertiser submitted test reports from different independent third-party test laboratories and that the findings of both the test reports demonstrated that they have fastest knockout time. The plaintiff's test report included two features that are not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A.Nos.563 & 564 of 2023 included in the report of the 2nd defendant – weight loss measurements and subsequent determination of amount of active released; and rating of the goods evaluated using an Anova ranking scheme. In a weight loss measurement, the FTC panel of the 1st defendant discussed the ways that a consumer could relate to see whether this product is better or not. One if there is an actual weight loss, the difference in weight loss, so the product usage could be for longer. However, from the reports it was seen that there is no difference in amount of liquid that is used up. The FTCP of the 1st defendant observed that from an actual consumer benefit point of view it was not clear that how an active reduction or the amount of active being used is understood by the consumer. The FTC panel of the 1st defendant further deliberated that because both the test reports submitted by the 2nd defendant and the plaintiff have the same structure and there is minimal statistical difference between them, there is no way of comparing them. Therefore, the superiority claim of 'India's Fastest' was inadequately substantiated. The claim of 'most powerful formula' was also held to be not substantiated as there was no noticeable distinction for the consumer to conclude that the product is powerful. FTCP of the 1st defendant held that according to the consumer perspective, it should be indicated how much of the product is utilized in the given amount of time. The claim, 'India's Fastest and Most Powerful Formula**' was held to be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A.Nos.563 & 564 of 2023 misleading by exaggeration and likely to lead to widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers. The said claim contravened Chapter I, Clause 1.1, 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code.
(ii) With regard to the claim '100% Protection even after switch off*!' (pack claim) – the FTC panel of the 1st defendant noted that as per the plaintiff the claim is a standalone claim and is not comparative in nature. The plaintiff submitted a test report which gave 100% mortality for their product. The results of the study concluded that the product was found to be highly effective against Anopheles Stephensi Culex quinquefasciatus species of mosquitoes by showing repellent efficacy in terms of landing when tested using human volunteers. However, the FTC panel of the 1st defendant deliberated on the comparative visual depiction comparing the advertiser's product 'Mortein Refill' with that of a 'leading brand refill'. The claim stated, '2 Hrs Extra Protection*' with a disclaimer - 'extra 2 hours protection against Aedes aegypti and Anopheles stephensi mosquitoes after use of the product in high mode for 60 minutes under standard lab test conditions.' The visual shows that there were no mosquitoes when the plaintiff's product was switched off whereas there were few mosquitoes seen moving around the leading brand refill. The FTC panel of the 1st defendant considered this comparative visual to be misleading by exaggeration and is likely to lead to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A.Nos.563 & 564 of 2023 widespread disappointment in the minds of consumers, and hence contravened Chapter I, Clause 1.4 and 1.5 of the ASCI Code. The FTCP of the 1st defendant noted that the plaintiff had agreed to withdraw this visual from the advertisement.

4.18. The applicant being the member of the first respondent is well aware of the independent process, Code, Rules and Guidelines of the first respondent because the applicant has contested many disputes in the past and had never challenged the process so far. So it is unfair on the part of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A.Nos.563 & 564 of 2023 applicant to claim that the first respondent has disregarded the law or natural justice. The first respondent is an independent body that protects consumer interests and ASCI Code contains specific chapters on consumer interest. Making advertisements without substantiating the claim amounts to violation of the ASCI Code.