The District Court acquitted the importer of fraud according to the Consumer Protection Law

Keren Levi-Hafetz, Adv, Gil Nadel, Adv.

Recently, the district court of Tel Aviv issued an important decision discussing the subject of fraud according to the Consumer Protection Law. In the decision, the district court acquitted the company Dr. Ron Baby Products, Ltd. and its manager Ronen Natani of the crime of fraud for use of the title "Dr." in an appeal on the decision of the Magistrate's Court of Tel Aviv (עפ 71834/06, for Dr. Ron- Adv. Keledron, for the Ministry of Industry, Trade, and Labor- Adv. Kinan)

In the proceedings that started in the Magistrate's Court of Tel Aviv, the company and its manager were convicted of fraud according to the Consumer Protection Law for use of the name "Dr. Ron". The Dr. Ron Baby Products Ltd. company was fined 50,000 NIS and its manager was fined 15,000 NIS. Additionally, a writ was issued forbidding the company and its manager to use the title "Dr." On the other hand, the company and manager were acquitted of the crimes of failure to mark.

In the framework of the appeal the company and manager claimed that the use of the name "Dr. Ron" was only a marketing gimmick which doesn't make the consumer think that cloth diapers, which the ministry presented the court as proof that the appellants use the name "Dr. Ron", have medical supervision. The appellants further claimed that the company acquired a reputation and the company is identified with the name "Dr. Ron" for some 10 years already. The appellants also requested to present certificates of registration for the trademark "Dr. Ron" with the trademark register. Additionally, the appellants claimed that they have been dealing with the Customs Authority and Ministry of Labor, Industry, and Trade for a number of years and no claim was ever raised by the authorities regarding the commercial name.

The District Court accepted the appeal and ruled that, unlike the ruling of the Magistrate's Court, the use of the name "Dr. Ron" by the appellants, for use of marketing of baby products, does not constitute the crime of fraud according to the Consumer Protection Law.

The court ruled that the average consumer, even the most innocent and unsophisticated, will not be fooled into thinking that an importer or marketer has the title Dr. or particular expertise in choosing baby products, whether the title Dr. is seen by the consumer as a medical degree or some other kind of acadmic degree. The courts also noted among their considerations that nowadays cloth diapers are not used for diapering but for other associated uses that are less sensitive.

The District Court ruled that no substantial misleading was done regarding sponsorship, since the intention of the word "sponsorship" in the Consumer Protection Law is the sponsorship or an organization or person with professional approval in the relevant field.

The court emphasized that this is a criminal proceeding in which doubt works for the accused and that even if they would have given a wider interpretation to the Consumer Protection Law in a civil suit, this is not the case in a criminal one.

The judges added that on the side of the defendants stands the principle of freedom of commercial speech, which is a basic right that sometimes stands against the rights of the consumers, and also the constitutional principle of freedom of trade.

The District Court therefore acquitted the appellants and canceled the writ forbidding them from using the title "Dr."