Keep consumer in mind while deciding product label: High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, November 22

The High Court has clarified that the standard for determining deception on a product’s label is that of an unwary normal consumer, particularly in the context of India where English is not the native language.

The issue before the high court was whether the statement “The World’s No.1 Juice Brand” on a product label constituted deception and misbranding. The company’s claim was that the statement did not concern the food contained in the package, its quality or even the nutritive value. It would as such not constitute an offence.

Making it clear that a finding regarding the absence of misbranding could not be recorded at the current stage, Justice Pankaj Jain ruled: “To hold that the statement did not amount to deception and would not constitute ‘misbranding’ would be beyond the scope of Section 482 of the CrPC (on the high court’s inherent powers)”

Justice Jain asserted the court was required to keep in mind the food item’s consumer, while weighing rival stands on the issue. The statement was made in English language, which was not native. Many of the customers in India knew the meaning of ‘juice’ but were not conversant with word ‘brand’.

The standard to be applied was not of a vigilant consumer, but an unwary normal consumer of products, while answering whether the statement made on the label was deceptive. A normal consumer was a man of imperfect recollection and statement on the label affected him. The court was required to put itself in the position of an average customer and ask whether the food article was being passed off creating deception.

“The likelihood of confusion or deception is to be seen in relation to average unwary customer. Food article is not juice. Allegation is that the consumer is being misled to believe food article as juice. The fact of the food article being passed off deceptively as juice is to be determined or ruled out. It is definitely matter of evidence…. This court finds that at this stage a finding that the statement contained on the label does not amount to misbranding of the product cannot be recorded,” he asserted.