Unilever rejects P&G proposal for arbitration in Ariel row

Unilever, makers of Omo, sued Procter & Gamble and ScanGroup over an advert that promotes Ariel detergent as the best washing powder in stain removal. FILE

By GAGALLO FAYO

Unilever rejects P&G proposal for arbitration in Ariel row


Unilever has objected to a proposal by its top rival Procter & Gamble to refer the dispute over controversial detergent advertisement to the advertisers’ self-regulatory agency for arbitration.

The Anglo-Dutch multinational said that it was afraid that a ruling reached by the Advertising Standards Board would be impartial since Procter & Gamble lawyers sit in the committee charged with settling disputes arising from advertisements.

Unilever, which manufactures the Omo washing powder, is aggrieved at Procter & Gamble’s prime time television advertisement that promotes Ariel as the best stain removal detergent in one wash and superior to its flagship washing detergent.

In the court battle, Procter & Gamble is represented by John Ohaga, managing partner of Triple O Advocates, and Unilever reckons that he together with an employee of the law firm Bryan Muindi sits in the committee of Advertising Standards Board.

“We should not be compelled to go for alternative form of tribunal. There is a perception that the tribunal is impartial as Mr Ohaga acts in a committee of tribunal as well as his associate in his firm,” said Unilever lawyer Tom Macharia.

The High Court last month suspended broadcasting and publication of the Ariel detergent advertisement, which was also placed on billboards.

On Monday, Lady Justice Jacqueline Kamau directed the parties to appear before the Advertising Standards Board and report back to the court on October 22 on its suitability for the judge to make further directions.

“I hereby direct that parties proceed to advertising standard committee to attempt resolution of the dispute herein. Parties to attend court on October 22 to advice the court on the issues that will have been framed for determination by the said tribunal,” ruled Lady Justice Kamau.

The committee was set up by marketers and advertisers to ensure the industry players observe a code of conduct and in line with public interest established under best practices in advertising and direct marketing.

Procter & Gamble said that referring the dispute to the committee is in the best interest of all parties on the strength that the court battle may hurt both Omo and Ariel brands, arguing that the negative publicity in the media would erode customer confidence in the products.

But Unilever objected saying that the committee had no jurisdiction to deal with statutory and constitutional issues raised in the dispute.

Procter & Gamble is being sued together with media advertising firm ScanGroup, which Unilever reckons is behind the Ariel advert.