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.
Rule 3.43 requires that “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”. Advertisers should be careful to ensure that they do not use competitor’s names or branding in any way that might mislead consumers about who is supplying the product or service.
In 2021 the ASA investigated an ad for a smart watch ‘FitsWatch’, which featured an image of a watch the complainant believed to be an Apple Watch. The ASA considered the shape and screen display of the watch in the ad were similar to that of an Apple Watch, and consumers would understand the ad to be referring to an Apple Watch that could be purchased from the advertiser. As the advertiser had not demonstrated they sold Apple Watches, the ASA concluded the ad was likely to mislead consumers about the product they sold. (UAB Commerce Core, 07 April 2021).
In 2019, the ASA also investigated two paid-for Google ads for a website featuring the claims “Citizens Advice UK” and “Citizens Debt Advice”. It considered consumers would be likely to associate the terms with Citizens Advice, and understand that by clicking the ad they would be taken to the Citizens Advice website, or to a debt advice company that was associated with Citizens Advice. As this was not the case, the ASA concluded the claims were misleading in this respect. (DebtHelp4Me Ltd, 9 January 2019).
The ASA also upheld a complaint about a website for Mazda UK Ltd, an independent company selling second-hand cars, in 2012. The name Mazda UK was flanked on either side by an image of wings reminiscent of those in Mazda Motors UK Ltd’s logo. Because there was no official connection between Mazda UK and Mazda Motors, the ASA concluded that the ad took unfair advantage of the reputation of Mazda Motors' trademark name, trademark logo and trade name (Mazda UK Ltd, 19 December 2012).
See also: ‘Immitation’ and ‘Denigration’.