Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
galaxo vs hienz case
Transcript of galaxo vs hienz case
facts of the case
Set the journey through your story
Click the flag to add the mountain top to your path
thumbnail to progress
Click the 'Done' button above
by adding a path to your prezi.
CASE STUDY SESSION
A Presentation On Legal Aspect Of Business
YATIN . P. PATIL
CORE (F) - 013122
Horlicks & Complan are the market leaders in children's health drink industry
competition arises on very high level
2 advertisement made by Complan which was downsizing the other brand Horlicks.
advertisements of Complan were harmful for the Horlicks resulted in to sales effect of Horlicks and demotivation for its brand.
Galaxo (Horlicks) filed a case against Heinz (Complan)
so which act do you think
is applied here ?
Competition act, 2002
The Competition Commission of India was established to prevent activities that have an adverse effect on competition in India [Section 7(1)].
main elements of this act are :
Abuse Of Dominance
Two Reputed Companies in industry.
abuse of dominance
downsizing the opponent party's product through advertisement.
as per section 4 under competition act, 2002 says that No enterprise shall abuse its dominant position.
Here complain made and advertisement which was showing its product strength by downgrading the Horlicks product which is illegal as per the competition act,2002
The case was in favor of Horlicks since the ad-campaign against them was clearly disparaging and also ordered Complan to pay Horlicks costs of Rs. 2.2 Lakhs only.