58 results, showing 21 to 40
Between January 2003 and August 2006 Aussia Australia Pty Ltd (Aussia), a supplier of complementary medicine products, represented that two products which it supplied, Squalene and Propolis, were 'made in Australia'.
ACCC investigation of the 'made in Australia' claims revealed that some batches of these products were imported from New Zealand in tablet or capsule form and only the packaging of the products was undertaken in Australia. In these circumstances the ACCC was concerned that the representations that the products were made in Australia were misleading and deceptive and likely to contravene sections 52, 53(a), 53(b) and 55 of the TPA.
In addition, Aussia made a number of representations on its website to the effect that Aussia was a company involved in research, development, manufacturing and sales and that Aussia had its own modern factory located in Sydney.
Between January 2003 and August 2006 Careline Australia Pty Ltd (Careline), a supplier of complementary medicine products, represented that the following products which it supplied in Australia and overseas were 'made in Australia' - Squalene, Propolis, Omega 3 and Royal Jelly.
ACCC investigation of the 'made in Australia' claims revealed that some batches of these products were imported from New Zealand in tablet or capsule form and only packaging of the products was undertaken in Australia. In these circumstances the ACCC was concerned that the representations that the products were made in Australia were misleading and deceptive and likely to contravene sections 52, 53(a), 53(b) and 55 of the TPA.
In response to the ACCC's concerns, Careline has provided the ACCC with a court enforceable undertaking to:
not represent that goods it supplies have been made in Australia unless those goods satisfy the test under section 65AB of the Act for country of origin claims.
This undertaking varies the undertaking given by GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Limited accepted by the ACCC on 13 March 2007.
From September 2005 to June 2006 Bevilles Pty Ltd (Bevilles), a jewellery retailer operating 24 stores located in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia, published and disseminated a number of catalogues in which some jewellery items were advertised with two prices, a high price struck through with a diagonal line above a more prominent lower price.
Based on sales information provided by Bevilles, the ACCC was concerned that the two-price advertising of some items misrepresented, in breach of sections 52 and 53(e) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (the Act), the usual selling price of the item immediately preceding publication of the catalogue, and also the amount of savings available to consumers who purchased the item during the catalogue promotion.
In response to the ACCC’s concerns, Bevilles provided the ACCC with court-enforceable undertakings to:
not engage in two-price advertising of jewellery items unless the higher price is no greater than the price at which Bevilles most frequently sold the item in the eight weeks prior to the promotion or, where Bevilles had not made any sales, it had offered the item for sale at the higher price in the eight weeks prior to the promotion;
distribute a correction notice to residential letterboxes in the regions in which Bevilles’ April/June 2006 catalogue was distributed, and display the correction notice within its stores and on its website; and
implement a trade practices compliance program that includes complaints handling procedures and practical trade practices training for its employees.