list of contributors - GALA

SWEDEN
Michael Plogell
Wistrand Advokatbyrå
michael.plogell@wistrand.se
www.wistrand.se
1. Case Report
Topic: Unfair marketing of “pharmaceuticals”
Parties: Cilag A.G. /. Ellen AB
Where: Market Court, Case MD 2005:9
When: March 2005
What Happened: Ellen marketed its tampons by stating that the tampons had preemptive,
curing or similar qualities against illnesses. According to established case
law, products marketed by the use of such remarks, are to be viewed as
pharmaceuticals.
Pharmaceutical products need mandatory approval under the
Pharmaceuticals Act before they may be put into the market. As Ellen’s
tampons did not have the required approval it was considered unfair
marketing to use the abovementioned statements.
Comments: Indications of curing effects and similar should not be used for products that
are not subject to approval under the Pharmaceuticals Act.
2. Case Report
Topic: Marketing of meat
Parties: Danske Slagterier, SA Brussels /. Scan Foods AB (“Scan”)
Where: Market Court, Case MD 2005:8
When: March 2005
What Happened: Scan had inter alia used two statements in its advertising practice, (i) “Choose
imported pork and you will get pharmaceuticals for free. We cannot offer
this for free, as our pork is completely free of antibiotics.” And (ii) Christmas
ham made from the world’s greatest pork.” These statements were
challenged by Danske Slagterier who claimed them to be misleading, unfair
and discreditable.
Generally all statements used in advertising must be reliable and correct. In
this case the Market Court established that the first statement (i) implied that
imported meat contains antibiotics, whilst the Swedish one does not. As Scan
could not prove this true, the statement was contrary to the Market Practises
Act (“MPA”). Regarding the second statement (ii) the Market Court
established that such a general and unreserved statement on the quality of
the pork was to be interpreted as Scan’s pork was claimed to be superior to
all other pork. Seeing that the statement was so generally put, it could be
questioned whether it was possible to prove at all. The documentation Scan
brought forward indicated that Scan’s pork was of a good quality but the
documentation was not sufficient to prove the general and unreserved
remark. Consequently, Scan had breached the MPA and was enjoined from
continuing the practice subject to a conditional fine.