Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
Previous editions of the Code have had a specific section on the Exploitation of Goodwill. The current edition, however, does not. The relevant section now is ‘Denigration and Unfair Advantage’. This section states that comparative marketing communications must not discredit or denigrate another product, marketer, trade mark, trade name or other distinguishing mark (Rule 3.42).
Marketing communications must not take unfair advantage of the reputation of a competitor’s trade mark, trade name or other distinguishing mark or of the designation of origin of a competing product (Rule 3.43).
Referring to a company’s trademark, brand name or campaign in an adverse or offensive way is likely to be unacceptable (Eidos Interactive Ltd, May 1999). Some light-hearted, humorous approaches or ironic references to competitors’ campaigns or products have, in the past, been acceptable as the ASA judged that they neither unfairly exploited the goodwill attached to the campaigns or products nor were they denigratory (BT plc t/a Genie Mobile, 30 May 2001 and Mazda Cars (UK) Ltd, Nov 2000).
Marketers should seek legal advice, where appropriate, under comparative advertising law.
Also see entries on ''Comparisons'' and ‘Denigration & Unfair Advantage’.
Last modified : 03 August 2010