Tag Archives: Advertisement

Surrogate Advertisements – Meaning of

“Surrogate” has been defined in Wharton’s Law Lexicon Dictionary, Seventeenth Edition, 2018 at page 1824:

        “One that is substituted or appointed in the room of another, as by a bishop, chancellor, Judge etc., especially an officer appointed t o dispense licences to marry without banns;

        A substitute: especially, a person appointed to act in place of another.”

        P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s The Law Lexicon, Fourth Edition 2017 at page 1862 defines the word ‘Surrogate’:

        “Is one that is substituted or appointed in the room of another; as by a Bishop, Chancellor, Judge etc.

        A person or thing acting in place of another.”

        ‘Surrogate’ has been defined in Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases, Eighth Edition at page 2904:

        “Is he who is appointed in the stead of another, most commonly of a bishop or his chancellor.”

            The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, Eighth Edition 1990 at page 1228 defines ‘surrogate’ as :

        “a substitute, especially, for a person in a specific role or office.”

        ‘Surrogate’ has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition at page 1485:

        “A substitute especially, a person appointed to act in the place of another.”

        The above definitions broadly show that “Surrogate” means a “Substitute”. Surrogate Advertisements are like Advertisements which duplicate the brand image of one product to promote another product of same brand. ‘Surrogate’ or ‘Substitute’ could either resemble the original product or could be a different product altogether but it is marketed under the established brand name of original product. Surrogate advertisements are resorted by Product Owners to promote and advertise the products and brands when the original product cannot be advertised on mass media. Struggle Against Pain v. State of U.P., 2019 (3) AWC 2930.

Leave a comment

Filed under Commercial Law, Surrogate Advertisements

Eligibility for Selection – Possession of Prescribed Qualification

The principle enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Vijay Kumar Mishra, (2017) 11 SCC 521 are as under:
“The position is fairly well settled that when a set of eligibility qualifications are prescribed under the rules and an applicant who does not possess the prescribed qualification for the post at the time of submission of application or by the cut-off date, if any, prescribed under the rules or stated in the advertisement, is not eligible to be considered for such post. It is relevant to note here that in the rules or in the advertisement no power was vested in any authority to make any relaxation relating to the prescribe qualifications for the post. Therefore, the case of a candidate who did not come within the zone of consideration for the post could not be compared with a candidate who possessed the prescribed qualifications and was considered and appointed to the post. Ramesh Chand v. State of Haryana, (2017) 11 SCC 516.

Leave a comment

Filed under Eligibility for Selection, Employment Law

Copywriting in an advertisement—Is an Art

What is relevant is not the literal meaning of a phrase; rather it’s impact on the consumer and if the impact tends to create humorous or hyperbolic impact and is not likely to be understood as making literal or misleading claims, the same will be permissible. Writing copy in an advertisement is an art and a copy writer will have thus, the freedom to express his own view and he will also have freedom of depicting the product in a manner which might, at the first sight appear to be obvious untruth and exaggeration, however, it’s final impact on the reader/consumer is humorous. Such an expression may sound as an obvious untruth or an exaggeration, however, if it ultimately causes an impact on the reader/consumer which is humorous or hyperbolic, the expression would be within the Advertising Code. Aditya Kumar Jha v. Union of India, 2017 (121) ALR 66.

Leave a comment

Filed under Advertising, Media Law

Public Employment – Transparency

An important requirement of public employment is that of transparency. Therefore, an advertisement must specify the number of posts available for selection and recruitment. The qualifications and other schedule of recruitment process should be published with certainty and clarity. The advertisement should also specify the rules under which the selection is to be made and in absence of the rules, the procedure under which the selection is likely to be undertaken. This is necessary to prevent arbitrariness and to avoid change of criteria of selection after the selection process is commenced, thereby unjustly benefiting someone at the cost of others. Renu v. District and Sessions Judge, (2014) 14 SCC 50.

Leave a comment

Filed under Employment Law, Transparency