Moisturising razor misleading?

The Higher Regional Court (OLG) Cologne had to decide whether a manufacturer of wet shavers is permitted to advertise that its products provide moisture during shaving. A competitor regarded this as false and therefore misleading advertising.

The disputing parties are competitors in the field of wet shaving devices with replaceable blades. One competitor advertised on the Internet and on the packaging of the razors with the following advertising slogans

"HYDRO provides moisture directly",

"Moisture-providing gel reservoir" and

"The water-activated gel with aloe vera and vitamin E provides the skin with moisture directly during shaving".

The competitor regarded this advertising as misleading because the statement was untrue. A moisture-providing effect of the wet shavers had not been demonstrated. Therefore, the competitor demanded that the aforementioned advertising statements be discontinued.

Court Decision

The Higher Regional Court (OLG) Cologne decided by Urteil vom 31.01.2014 – Az. 6 U 119/12 – that advertising for moisture-providing razors must be discontinued.

Advertising a wet shaver with the statements "Moisture-providing gel reservoir" or "The water-activated gel with aloe vera and vitamin E provides the skin with moisture directly during shaving" is misleading if moisture is not actually supplied to the user's skin. The advertising statements on the Internet and on the packaging raised expectations among the targeted consumers regarding the effects achievable through the use of the product, for which there is an insufficient factual basis.

Since the advertising statement does not relate to medical effects but concerns the organism and well-being, particularly strict requirements must be placed on the correctness of the statements, which these fail to meet in the present case.

Conclusion

The promotion of products with certain effects in the field of cosmetics and medicine must not only correspond to the truth but must also have been demonstrated scientifically accordingly. If such proof cannot be provided, the advertising is misleading and therefore anti-competitive and can be subject to a costly cease-and-desist order from a competitor.