Abstract

In this gloss to the Supreme Court judgment of 13 December 2013 (III CSK 65/13), the authoress raises the issue of using comparative advertising by competing entrepreneurs. As a matter of principle, both the doctrine and literature unanimously consider advertisements which mislead consumers to be harmful. The authoress states that on the grounds of the case on hand the Supreme Court correctly found that comparative advertising may not be considered as misleading in a situation when consumers have been explicitly informed about the prices of compared products and the period of their application by the defendant and the plaintiff. Moreover, in order to assess whether advertising may be misleading, it is necessary to refer to an average consumer model. In the established Supreme Court judgments it is a person capable of interpreting advertising information, does not easily succumb to advertisements and the suggestions contained therein, and is characterized by a certain degree of criticism in regard to advertisements. In the opinion of the Supreme Court, in that case the advertisement turned out to be to the advantage of the consumers since it caused a reduction of prices of if only a few products sold by both the defendant and the plaintiff. Of special significance for the practice is the Court’s assent for certain mistakes (even as regards prices or dates) in comparative advertising. The Court found that the comparative advertising regulations should be interpreted in favour of the comparing party as otherwise such advertising could always be questions since mistakes may always occur.