Mrtpc Throws Out Pepsi Claim On Coca-Cola Ads

PepsiCo India's complaint that Coca-Cola India has been running a `discriminatory' promotional scheme `Win fabulous prizes under every crown' has been rejected by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.

In its judgement yesterday delivered by chairman A N Divecha, the commission ruled that an inquiry into the scheme need not be initiated.

It also rejected the Pepsi bottler's petition for an injunction and initiation of inquiry into the promotional scheme of Coca-Cola India.

The MRTPC also rejected the Pepsi bottler's contention that the promotional scheme was a lottery and held that the scheme was `neither a lottery not an unfair trade practice'.

 

The Pepsi bottling firm Devyani Beverages had earlier filed two petitions against Coke in the MRTPC against Coke's promotional scheme, charging the scheme for being discriminatory and alleging that it amounted to unfair trade practice.

The MRTPC has maintained that both the promotional schemes (for Thums Up as well as Coke) were in consumer interest and that these schemes do not constitute `unfair trade practice' since each consumer is benefited with a gift of Coffy Bite or Minto.

Coca-Cola, on the other hand, has already removed the line `Win fabulous prizes under every crown' from hoardings and advertisements.

The company had earlier submitted an affidavit to the MRTPC, stating that it would remove the line from hoardings and advertisements and instead named the scheme `Under the crown'.

The Pepsi spokesman could not be contacted for his comments since he was said to be out of station. When contacted, the Coca-Cola spokesman declined to comment on the issue.

According to industry sources, Pepsi has dragged Coca-Cola to the court in various parts of the world over the last three years. In India, too, the two cola giants have been involved in a messy court battle over Pepsi charging Coke of poaching senior managerial staff and other employees besides the MRTPC case.

Devyani Beverages had earlier argued in the MRTPC that Coke's scheme was based on first-come-first-serve basis and the terms and conditions do not put all prize winners at parity.

Following this, Coke had brought out another series of ads in newspapers clarifying various objections raised by the petitioner (Pepsi).

The counsel for Devyani had also pointed out other inconsistencies in the Coke scheme, and requested the Commission to `initiate an inquiry into unfair trade practices indulged in by the respondents as a consequence of the impugned scheme'.