Beiersdorf wins court case against misleading advertisement

When contacted, Robert Taylor-Hughes, general manager, Beiersdorf Middle East provided the following insights: "I am unfortunately unable to comment on the case itself as I was not personally involved; you would need to speak to our legal team in Hamburg for full details." As the case is however in the public domain, Beiersdorf are willing to provide to journalists a copy of the contentious TVC's and the subsequent court judgment, Court ref. no. 327 O 501/05, if they wish to collect them in person from our Public Relations department on presentation of the correct credentials.

When pressed about the reasons behind the case, Taylor-Hughes responded:

"What I can safely say having read the final judgment is that the European court recognises that Brands should not be allowed to mislead and lie to consumers about the performance and capabilities of its products, especially when trying to unfairly compare it to a leading competitor. NIVEA was the first ever modern cosmetic and we see it as our duty on behalf of consumers everywhere, to protect them against other manufacturer's false claims when identified, regarding the benefits and capabilities of their skin care products. With 100 years of skin care research behind us, if there was something better, we would have made it already!"

The lack of a similar advertising body in the Middle East that monitors unfair activities and trademark infringements so a brand owner can make its case and eventually take through the judicial system is a problem Beiersdorf is facing in the ME region. Yet, Beiersdorf is hopeful this will come sooner rather than later as regions naturally upgrade their fair trade frameworks and look for global trade endorsements such as WTO ascension.

"The only Brand advertising body currently in the UAE is ironically chaired by Unilever, powered by its budget muscle. We find it very disheartening that such a generally well regarded company can pretend to act on behalf of the best interests of the members of the GCC Advertising Association, including ourselves, when they conversely choose to blatantly abuse this peer appointed position with comparative advertising techniques, not just with Beiersdorf but with at least two other brand owners to my knowledge at this time. Solidarity was part of the original GCC AA mandate that all the brand owners bought into" notes Taylor-Hughes. When asked who he felt was to blame for this type of infringement Taylor Hughes added that he felt both Unilever and their advertising agency are equally to blame for such inconsistency: "Every brand owner knows a creative can not be aired without approval from the very top of the company - there is simply too much investment made and brand reputation is at stake."

Besides the current similar attacks on several of their competitive peers, Beiersdorf have faced problems with Unilever's agency only last year. The agency tried to oppress Beiersdorf into removing a two year ad campaign, when they discovered they had mistakenly signed an exclusive direct contract with a model when she was already under contract to Beiersdorf through her original model agency. Unable to resolve the issue without financial embarrassment, the agency ran the commercial anyway breaking several copyright rules.

"Obviously Unilever has found a good agency match when it comes to moral standards" he adds. Finally when asked if Beiersdorf would follow similar counter-attack advertising techniques already on air, Taylor-Hughes responded: "We have already seen the reaction from one of our competitors with it's 'choose red campaign', we would prefer not be drawn into this kind of amateur gun battle in our region. It only degrades the industry in our opinion. We prefer authentic, beautiful, creative advertising that we can be proud of as do most large advertisers with any sense of decency and creative talent at their disposal."