The Lawyers Weekly - Inside Councel, Summer 2011

that those prizes were not autographed per se, but only imprinted with the player’s signature. Coca-Cola subsequently published this correction ad in The Globe and Mail: “(The) Bureau of Competition Policy…has informed us that (our contest)…has raised questions under…the misleading advertising provisions of the Competition Act…Coca-Cola Ltd. undertakes to correct this situation in all future promotional contests by ensuring…representations which may be materially misleading are avoided.”

2. THE REMINGTON SHAVER CASE

Then there is the classic case involving the inimitable, larger-than-life Victor Kiam. Who can forget his now legendary tagline: “I liked the shaver so much, I bought the company.” Not only was the ad in which the tagline appeared an instant hit, but it also caused Remington sales to skyrocket into the stratosphere. What you may not know is that the ad sparked a significant misleading advertising case whose legal precedent is as famous in the annals of advertising law as the ad itself was in the annals of the marketing world.

Here are the facts. In 1987, Reming-
ton introduced a new electric shaver
called the “Remington Micro Screen
Ultimate.” To promote it, Reming-
ton broadcast several different TV
commercials across Canada. Kiam
narrated the commercial and in the
course of the ad he made this equally
immortal statement: “Shaves as close
as a blade and closer than any other
electric shaver…Remington Ultimate
tests prove it. In tests approximately
70 [per cent] said it shaves closer than
any other shaver.”
Remington commissioned indepen-
dent tests to support its claim as com-
pared to its major competitors. How-
ever, the problem that Remington faced
was that its ad stated that the shaver “(shaves) closer than any
other electric shaver,” yet the tests measured the Remington
razor against only 90-95 per cent of the market.

In good faith, Remington relied on these tests to substantiate its claims but it did not test its product against every brand of electric shaver marketed in Canada. Consequently, the tests were not adequate to support the blanket claim that the Remington product shaved “closer than any other electric shaver.”

“

3. THE GILLETTE CASE

Finally, let’s look at a U.S. court case in what is a text-
book example of how “exaggerated animation” in a commer-
cial can result in misleading advertising. In 2004, Gillette
launched its M3 Power razor system in the U.S. Gillette’s
advertising centred on the claim that “micropulses raise hair
up and away from skin, allowing for a closer shave.” Schick
disagreed with that “hair extension” claim, taking Gillette to
court, alleging misleading advertising.

WHAT CAN YOU LEARN?

The obvious lesson that comes from these cases is how careful an advertiser must be when using words in an advertisement. For example, broad statements are a recipe for a misleading advertising claim—“it shaves closer than any other shaver” is a perfect example of that —it is impossible to make that statement since it is impossible to check your razor against “ every” razor in the marketplace.

The practical lesson, however, is the very basic need for in-house counsel to partner with the marketing department in reviewing advertising copy for compliance with misleading advertising laws. Legal gremlins can lurk in any marketing campaign, be it an innovative campaign or a rather straightforward promotion. Unless in-house counsel has the opportunity to review advertising, it is possible that those legal gremlins may simply slip through the cracks only to surface later when it is too late to proactively address the situation. END