Dabur India Ltd(*)
(Dabur Red Toothpaste)

Bates India(*)

Star Plus(*)
(29/6/05)

TVC claim - “get  strong teeth from Dabur Red Toothpaste which contains laung, pudina, and tomar”.   

Complaint (received from a member of Dental Profession)

October 2005
Chapter I.1.
No tests/trials reports from an independent testing facility, were provided by the Advertiser.
Claim made in the TVC, and on the product pack, not substantiated.

January  2006
Decision on Review
Upheld decision stands.
Chapter I.1.
Claim, “get strong teeth”, not substantiated adequately.

TVC  discontinued. 

2.

Hindustan Lever Ltd(*)
(Clinic All Clear Hair Fall Defense)

Lowe(*)

GO 92.5 FM(*)
(Oct 05)

Radio Commercials claim - (without any qualification) –“Baal girney ka sawaal hi nahi”(“question of hair fall doesn’t arise”)

This is a gross exaggeration of facts.  The Radio commercials distort facts and are misleading consumers in believing that Clinic All Clear stops hair fall.
The qualification supers in the hoardings are illegible.

January  2006
Chapters I.1 and I.4.
Claims cited in the complaint, and made in the Radio commercials, and  appearing on the Hoardings,  false and misleading.

3.

McDowell & Company Limited
(McDowell’s No.1)

Mudra Comm(*)

T.O.I.(*)

Mention of the word `Soda’in an inconspicuous manner,
Brand name - `McDowell’s No.1’

This could be misleading by its ambiguity.

The advertisement appears to be a surrogate advertisement for a liquor brand –McDowell’s No.1.  If the product promoted in the advertisement is a non-alcoholic product, then the advertiser should provide data to establish the sustainability of the promotion, in relation to sales revenues derived from the product.

January  2006
Chapter I.1.
Mere mention of the word ‘soda’, in an inconspicuous manner, totally delinked from the Brand name, or from the individual claims stated conspicuously in the advertisement, whilst boldly stating the brand name,  “McDowell’s No.1”, and the slogan, “Mera No. 1”,  misleading by its ambiguity.

4.

Dr. Batra’s Positive Health Clinic P. Ltd
(Presenting German Technology for hair analysis)

Dentsu Marcom P. Ltd

T.O.I.(*),  Mumbai

Photo on the left of the Ad  shows alopecia areata, which is a problem whereby the hair can grow back without any treatment.

“Trichological Society, London, is the world’s premier trichology institute”

The photos shown in the advertisement are misleading.

Claim is false. 

January  2006
Chapters I.1 and I.4.
Claims cited in the complaint, and mentioned in the advertisement, false and could be misleading.

5.

Times Internet Ltd(*)
(300W Home Theatre System @ 60% off)

Mumbai Mirror(*)

“Launched in India by Fenda one of the largest manufacturers of Home Theatre Systems in the world” 

Offer - “60% off Estimated market value bearing a net price of Rs.1990/- plus Delivery & Handling Charges Rs.300 extra”  

The advertisement should have mentioned the rating agency in support of this claim.

January  2006
Chapters I.1 and I.4.
Claim not substantiated  in respect of Market/Industry standing. 

Claim was misleading by ambiguity in respect of the estimated market value and the corresponding price discount  quoted.

Advertiser informed that Ad stopped from December 05, as the offer was for a limited period, and the Ad will not be released again.

6.

Bharat Petroleum Corp Ltd(*)
(Speed Premium Petrol)

Saatchi & Saatchi(*)

Advertisement promotes bad road behaviour, and it will adversely affect the minds of the youngsters and children.

January  2006
Chapter III.3.
Action sequences depicted in the TVC, encouraged excessive speed and dangerous driving on a busy roadway.  Such actions show dangerous practices and manifest a disregard for safety without justifiable reason. TVC does not caution the viewers that an expertise and skill is required for the performance of such acts, which should not be emulated by those not capable of performing them safely or without undue risk. 

7.

Johnson & Johnson Ltd(*)
(Stayfree Secure Dry)

McCann-Erickson (I) Ltd(*)

DD1, Sun TV, Udaya TV

Comparison of Stayfree Secure Dry to all expensive napkins using a general descriptor of `mehenga napkin’is a gross exaggeration.  Further, the claim being `as good as’is vague and ambiguous as it does not specify the parameters on which Stayfree Secure Dry is considered equivalent to expensive napkins.
By not specifying any particular brand of `expensive napkin’for comparison, the TVC is leaving the communication vague and ambiguous and implying `the market leader’among premium product segment. 

January  2006
Chapter I.1.
Claim cited in the complaint, not substantiated.

8.

Hyundai Motor India Ltd
(Santro Car)

Saatchi & Saatchi(*)

Various channels

This sends a wrong message/signal to the viewers particularly kids who are watching it.

March  2006
Chapter III.3
Actions portrayed in the visual depicted in the TVC and under complaint, showed a dangerous practice, without justification. 

9.

Samsung India Electronics Ltd(*)
(Samsung X 200 Mobile Phone)

Cheil Communications

The parakeets who are used in the advertisement are protected under the Wildlife (Protection) Act (WPA) 1972.  The trade and trafficking of these birds is banned, and this includes their caging, displaying and trading. 
Any advertisement that uses any kind of animals must have a No Objection Certificate from the  Animal Welfare Board of India certifying that the said advertisement has
been made in compliance with the Performing Animals (Registration) Rules, 2001 framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

March  2006
Chapter III.4.
In the absence of evidence that the relevant Acts were complied with, the advertisement was in breach of the law. 

10.

TVS Motor Company Limited
(TVS Victor Edge –Traffic Cutter)

Saatchi & Saatchi(*)

Star Plus(*)

Advertisement is very bad in taste and against all the traffic rules.  Such advertisements encourage people specially the teenagers, to drive recklessly on the roads.

(Ten similar complaints received against the same TVC)

March  2006
Chapter III.3.  
Actions portrayed in the visuals depicted in the TVC, showed a dangerous practice, and manifested a disregard for safety, without justification. 

11.

Bajaj Auto Ltd
(Bajaj CT 100)

Lowe(*)

Star Plus(*)

TVC  clearly shows and denigrates ‘Splendor’, the leading brand of Hero Honda Motors Ltd., as an ‘ordinary’motorcycle that gives riders a backache.

March  2006
Chapters I.1 and IV.1(e)
Implied claim was not substantiated, and the advertisement by implication, unfairly denigrated a group of  similar products. 

TVC no longer on air.  In future, specific identifiable competitive brands will not be depicted unless pertinent to the complaint itself.

Subsequently, the Advertiser has provided additional technical information in support of the claims, as validated by professional institutions and as reported in recognised industry journals.

12.

Nike India Pvt Ltd

Star Sports(*)

This  may lead someone doing this with a living baby.  The advertisement is demeaning, vulgar, and in bad taste.  

March  2006
Chapters II and III.1(a)
Visual depiction was derogatory to womanhood.   Advertisement was in  bad taste and  likely to give rise to widespread offence amongst girls.   Advertisement also promoted violence, by implication.

13.

Narangs Hospitality Services Pvt Ltd
(Evian Natural Mineral Water)

Ad –Leaflet distributed at Willingdon Sport Club

“Detox Yourself”, “If eating out, drinking and partying is a regular feature of your lifestyle, you need to shed your excesses and cleanse your body with the Evian Detox Regime”.

Leaflet gives an impression that Evian Water is special water having medicinal properties which helps in detoxing.
These claims are exaggerated and false as they are medicinal and water doesn’t have any medicinal properties.

March  2006
Chapter I.1.
Claims, “Evian spreads quickly through
your system and facilitates the elimination of waste and regenerates your body from the inside
out”, and  “You’ll be helping your body feel young and revitalized, especially  with the vital
minerals you’ll be taking in from Evian”, were not substantiated.

14.

Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd(*)
(Colgate Sensitive Toothbrush)

Rediffusion DY&R(*)

The Week(*)

“Colgate –Dentists’No.1 Choice”

In the absence of a notation in the advertisement, on the source supporting this claim, the advertiser is required to substantiate the claim.

March  2006
Chapters I.4 and I.1
Advertisement was misleading by ambiguity, since the claim, “….switch to a toothbrush with ultra-soft bristles”, was linked with the claim of, “Colgate –Dentists’No.1 Choice”, and the visual depiction of the toothbrush was specific to “Colgate Sensitive”.  
Claim, “Colgate -  Dentists’No.1 Choice”, was not substantiated adequately, since the supporting reports cited by the Advertiser, referred to “Colgate”brand and not specifically to “Colgate Sensitive Toothbrush”.   

15.

Elder Pharmaceuticals Ltd
(Fair One Cream)

Everest Brand Solutions(*)

Free Press Journal

Visuals -  “A girl’s face being used (by implication) as a source of brightness to see an X Ray film”

Advertisement is ambiguous and misleading in the absence of any apparent mention or relevance to the product promoted –Fair One cream.

March  2006
Chapter I.4.
Visual depiction without any mention or relevance to the product promoted –Fair One cream, was misleading by ambiguity. 

16.

Elder Pharmaceuticals Ltd
(Fair One Cream)

Everest Brand Solutions(*)

Free Press Journa (28/12/05)

Claim- “visible difference in 15 days”

What are the attributes related to the product –  `Fair One’, and what is the claim pertaining to?  Advertisement is misleading by ambiguity.

March  2006
Chapters I.1 and  I.4.
Claim mentioned in the advertisement, was not substantiated with relevant technical data or tests/trials reports, and the advertisement was misleading by ambiguity in the absence of any relevant reference of the visual depiction of “legs”, to the product promoted –Fair One cream.