Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
MD:2001:019 Generato dall'IA

Marketing claim dismissed for using unverified cost comparisons violating good business practice.

Numero d'incarto MD:2001:019
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Finlandia (FI)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The court dismissed the defendant's marketing claim because it relied on an unverified cost comparison lacking specific material details. The defendant presented a general result without identifying the exact structures or insulation materials used, violating good business practice. Consequently, the court ruled that such vague comparisons cannot serve as a valid basis for the claim.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

SopMenL 1 §; 6 §: A marketing claim based on an unverified cost comparison that fails to specify materials and structures violates good business practice and is therefore inadmissible.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
marketing claim cost comparison good business practice unverified data market court pubblicità ingannevole e comparativa test comparativo prezzo al minuto

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
SopMenL 1 §
SopMenL 6 §
Generato dall'IA
market_1984_3
Unfair competition court bans misleading price comparisons and false claims of complete housing packages.
market_1993_21
Market court bans unfair roof material comparison and false claims under unfair competition law.
market_1993_3
Market court increases fine for comparative advertising violations regarding stove heat retention claims.
market_1992_30
Market Court bans unfair trade practices claims for false advertising of insulation products without proof.
market_1997_1
Market Court dismisses unfair competition claims regarding misleading kebab preparation comparison and promotional gifts.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

Vastaaja oli markkinoinnissaan esittänyt kustannusvertailun, joka koski kylmän ullakon eristämistä vastaajan tuotteella ja villaeristeellä. Toisessa vertailuaineistossa ei ollut yksilöity vertailussa tarkoitettuja materiaaleja ja rakenteita, vaan siinä oli ainoastaan esitetty vertailun tulos markkamääräisenä. Tämä vertailu oli ollut yksilöimätön. Vastaaja oli käyttämällä markkinoinnissaan vertailua, jossa oli verrattu villaeristeellä ja vastaajan tuotteilla eristettyjen rakenteiden eristämiskustannuksia ilman, että rakenteita ja eristämisessä tarvittavia materiaaleja on yksilöity, menetellyt markkinoinnissaan hyvän liiketavan vastaisesti.

SopMenL 1 § ja 6 §