Rechtspraak

  • Bijzonderheden van de zaak
    • Nationaal ID: Court of Appeal, Hertogenbosch, 28 August 2018
    • Lidstaat: Nederland
    • Gangbare benaming:N/A
    • Soort beslissing: Rechterlijke beslissing in beroep
    • Datum beslissing: 28/08/2018
    • Gerecht: Court of Appeal, Hertogenbosch
    • Onderwerp:
    • Eiser:
    • Verweerder:
    • Trefwoorden: Misleading advertising, competition, burden of proof,
  • Richtlijnartikelen
    Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 3 Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 3 Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 4 Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 4 Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 6 Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 7
  • Koptekst

    ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2018:3635

  • Feiten

    GT Medicare is a manufacturer of cabinets to store an Automatic External Defibrillator (hereinafter: AED) at an outdoor location and to protect it against (among other things) weather conditions (outdoor cabinets). Rotaid is also a manufacturer of outdoor cabinets for AEDs. A product developed and produced by Rotaid is the Rotaid Solid plus Heat outdoor cabinet (hereafter: Rotaid cabinet). This outdoor cabinet was designed by Rotaid in 2013. All manufacturers of AEDs specify at least an operating temperature of 0 to 50 degrees Celsius. The storage temperature of an AED varies by brand and type. Until mid-July 2017, a product brochure of the Rotaid cabinet mentions that the hood of the AED is equipped with UV filters to provide adequate protection against direct and indirect sunlight and that the custom-made heating system automatically ensures that the AED’s temperature is kept at, at least,

    5 degrees Celsius, even if the outside temperature goes below -25 degrees Celsius.

    Only as of 10 October 2017, did Rotaid’s website mention that the cabinet should be installed in the shade at all times; the current installation manual now mentions this as well.

  • Juridische kwestie

    In the proceedings at hand, GT Medicare claims, among other things, that the Rotaid cabinet does not meet the specifications published by Rotaid itself. As a result, users may be confronted with a non-functioning AED during an emergency situation. According to GT Medicare, Rotaid’s statements pertaining to the specifications of the AED are thus, misleading.

  • Uitspraak

    The Court of Appeal first sets out that according to article 6:195 (1) BW, if a claim is brought on the basis of article 6:194 BW (misleading advertisement) against a party that has determined or has had determined the content and furnishing of the communication in whole or in part, the burden of proof rests on that second party with regard to the correctness or completeness of the facts contained in the communication or suggested by it and on which the alleged misleading character of the communication is based. This article thus provides for a reduction of the burden of proof for those who wish to act on the basis of article 6:194 BW, among other things, by reversing the burden of proof with regard to the unlawfulness and placing it on the advertiser. A plaintiff may, therefore, stop at stating and plausibly demonstrating that the statement is misleading, upon which it is for the defendant to prove otherwise.

    On appeal, GT Medicare has argued that test reports show that Rotaid’s claim that her outdoor cabinet protects the AED to -25 degrees Celsius is misleading. This also applies to Rotaid’s statement regarding the outside temperature to -20 degrees Celsius. Test results also show that the AED does not protect against high temperatures. GT Medicare referred, in this respect, to two tests carried out and test reports drawn up by GT Medicare itself as well as a test carried out by an external institute and the accompanying report. In the opinion of the Court of Appeal, GT Medicare has made sufficient submissions with regard to the misleading nature of Rotaid's statements, as a result of which the burden of proof with regard to the accuracy and completeness of those statements is placed on Rotaid. This does not mean, however, that Rotaid must fully prove within the scope of these preliminary relief proceedings that its statements are not misleading. For the purposes of these summary proceedings, it suffices that Rotaid proves it to be plausible that the communications it makes are not misleading. It is important in this respect that the answer to the question of whether a statement is misleading or not within the meaning of article 6:194 BW is based on the probable expectation of the average informed, careful and attentive user to whom the statement is addressed to or whom it reaches.

    URL: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2018:3635

    Integrale tekst: Integrale tekst

  • Verwante zaken

    Geen resultaten

  • Rechtsleer

    Geen resultaten

  • Resultaat

    N/A