Disclaimer

2025 CLD 1276 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 10(2)(b)Deceptive marketing practiceDeterminationNet general impressionDisclaimerEffect

Respondent establishment launched its new vehicle in market and in its media campaign introductory prices were prominently displayed in large font

Disclaimer stating "for limited time period only" was printed in a much smaller font, making it nearly illegible whereas period of such price was less than 24 hours

Validity

Deceptive marketing is evaluated based on net general impression of an advertisement

Even if a disclaimer exists, it must be clear, conspicuous and prominently placed to eliminate any misleading effect

Absence of key details in the advertisement of respondent, such as limited quantity of vehicles available at the time of introductory price and the abrupt withdrawal of the offer within 24 hours had raised serious concerns regarding accuracy and transparency of respondent's marketing campaign

Competition Commission imposed penalty upon respondent establishment who had acted in contravention of S. 10(2)(b) of Competition Act, 2010 by omitting to disclose material information related to their product characteristics to consumers

Show cause notice was disposed of accordingly.

2025 CLD 1065 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(1)(q) & 10(2)(a) & (b)Term, "undertaking"Deceptive marketing practiceMisleading advertisementDisclaimerEffect

Show-cause notice was issued to respondent establishment for advertisement in newspaper offering attractive packages to teachers seeking to join an online educational program

Validity

Respondent-establishment was engaged in providing educational services and was registered with Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan under Companies Act, 2017, therefore, was qualified to be an undertaking as defined in S. 2(1)(q) of Competition Act, 2010

Once a false or misleading impression was created, subsequent clarifications, whether on a website or elsewhere could not remedy its deceptive effect

It was responsibility of respondent-establishment to ensure that material information was clearly and prominently disclosed within the advertisement itself

Disclaimers must serve to clarify not contradict primary message

Respondent-establishment violated S. 10(2)(b) of Competition Act, 2010 by disseminating misleading information regarding projected earnings, affiliations and qualifications of its Board of Directors

Such misrepresentations were capable of harming business interests of other undertakings thereby constituting violation of S. 10(2)(a) of Competition Act, 2010

Competition Commission directed to initiate criminal proceedings before Court of competent jurisdiction against respondent-establishment pursuant to S. 38 of Competition Act, 2010 and also imposed penalty upon respondent-establishment

Show-cause notice was disposed of accordingly.

2020 CLD 1148 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 10Deceptive marketing practicesDisclaimerEffectiveness of disclaimerScope

Commission while evaluating the effectiveness of disclaimer/disclosure considers factors such as prominence, presentation, placement and proximity between the advertising claim and the associated disclaimer/disclosure

Principle regarding disclaimer/disclosure is that they must be 'clear and conspicuous' and placed 'as close as possible' to the advertising claim.

2020 CLD 1148 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 10Deceptive marketing practicesDisclaimerVaguely-labeled disclaimerScope

Burying material information behind vaguely-labelled hyperlinks or on dense "Terms and Conditions" pages that are more snooze-inducing is unwise.

2020 CLD 1148 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 10Deceptive marketing practicesDisclaimerOmitting material information pertaining to overall contextScope

Complainant urged that the respondent had resorted to deceptive marketing practices by advertising itself as the only milk declared by Supreme Court to be fit for human consumption

Contention of respondent was that presence of a conspicuous disclaimer in the form of hyperlink of the Supreme Court's order was sufficient to provide for the basis of the order and that the disclaimer was in itself sufficient to dispel any misleading impression

Validity

Respondent though had used exact verbatim of the Supreme Court's order with reference to a report of laboratory, however, the respondent had omitted material information pertaining to its overall context

Providing a hyperlink to the order of the Supreme Court was not sufficient to correct the overall impression disseminating the post through its main headline

Respondent should not have termed the source as "Supreme Court", rather it should have been labelled as the Laboratory

Competition Commission held that the respondent through the dissemination of false and misleading information had violated the provisions of S. 10(1) read with S. 10(2)(b) of the Competition Act, 2010.

2020 CLD 1148 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 10Deceptive marketing practicesDisclaimerPurpose ofScope

Purpose of disclaimer is only to provide additional information and clarity regarding a claim, instead of completely altering the meaning of its overall message

Meaning of the message conveyed in the main claim and the overall advertisement should not be significantly changed when read with information given in the disclaimers.

2020 CLD 995 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 10Deceptive marketing practicesDisclaimerScope

Competition Commission, while evaluating the effectiveness of the disclaimer/disclosure, considers factors such as prominence, presentation, placement or proximity between the advertising claim and the associated disclaimer/disclosure.

2018 CLD 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(xxiv), 40, 46 & 42Trade markInfringement/imitationDisclaimerVarious features of trade markPassing off actionsAdjudication of cases involving alleged infringement/imitation of trademark(s)Determination as to whether there existed imitation/ infringement of trademarkTest and scope

For maintaining a passing off action, registration of a trademark was not a requirement and even if there existed a disclaimer on a product, a passing off action could still be maintained and succeed if claimant succeeded in showing that disclaimed features in the registration had acquired distinctiveness by virtue of use and promotion and enjoyed reputation and goodwill in favour of claimant

Law envisaged each one of the features stated in S. 2(xxiv) of Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001, inter alia, a name, word, figurative element, colour etc., to be mark by itself and any combination of such features would be a mark also

When one feature of a label consisting of a combination of marks was adopted or copied, infringement of such feature (a mark) took place; which was liable to be remedied and it would not be a valid defence by a defendant, that he had not adopted/imitated other features of a mark, which may be different

Infringement could still take place if only word(s) were copied but not the colour scheme, design and get-up, but such infringement was to the extent of such word(s)

Appearance in the market place of a number of infringements/imitations of a trademark did not give justification for a infringer/imitator to claim that original proprietor of trademark had lost such proprietary status

Comparison by a Court between two trademarks was not to be a meticulous comparison for the reason that in order to reach mind of an incautious or unwary purchaser, the test should be if a person would be deceived when he/she saw one trademark in absence of another mark.