Tesco Lotus ordered to pay Bt4bn damage compensation to Big C group

[MAJIC]

I shouldn't think this compensation award will bother Tesco too much,except from a world reputation point of view. They pulled out of Japan in 2011, and earlier this year closed down their interests the USA,the reason being,a dramatic drop in profits. But they can still afford a totally ruthless approach to business, with 4811 Super Stores around the World,472,000 Employees,generating £6,000 a minute or £100 a second,so does anyone really believe they care a toss about Thailand? make no mistake if this judgment damages them in the slightest,I predict there will be one less Supermarket chain doing business in Thailand.

[MAJIC]

Precedence set. Congratulations to Tesco-Lotus; not only can this fine be tax-active in the books but they can go and take all those clowns to the cleaners now which all operate with fake/wrong promises on pricing, quality, ingredients, life shelf - the works!

TESsie COhen (the founder's wife's name) must be proud of the local goings. Who's next!

I get so tired of posters posting about something, where they clearly have no knowledge!

The name TESCO originates from T.E.Stockwell (a teatrader) and Jack COhen.

Sir Jacks wife was named Sarah.

Correct.

Jack Cohen was the founder of Tesco.

I believe that Tesco recently lost billions of dollars when their stores flopped in the USA.

At this rate, the store chain will soon be bankrupt and out of business.

There is no chance of Tesco going bust with 4811 Superstores around the world,Walmark calls the tune in America! so a bad management decision to ever take on Walmark.

Edited June 25, 2013 by MAJIC

[DefaultName]

""Big C respects the Court's verdict and hopes that this case shall be a case study on the standard and proper conduct of marketing that all companies should adhere to for the long-term benefits of the consumers," Big C said in a statement."

Award me 4,000,000,000 Baht and I'll respect the courts verdict too. Any court. Really, any court at all.

[MAJIC]

""Big C respects the Court's verdict and hopes that this case shall be a case study on the standard and proper conduct of marketing that all companies should adhere to for the long-term benefits of the consumers," Big C said in a statement."

Award me 4,000,000,000 Baht and I'll respect the courts verdict too. Any court. Really, any court at all.

I come much cheaper at a 10th of that!

[Tywais]

Current Nation article shows 4 million baht which is more realistic. The Nation

Tesco Lotus ordered to pay Bt4mn damage compensation to Big C group

The court also awarded the damage compensation of Bt2.46 million to Big C Supercentre and Bt1.5 million to Cencar

[MAJIC]

Current Nation article shows 4 million baht which is more realistic. The Nation

Tesco Lotus ordered to pay Bt4mn damage compensation to Big C group

The court also awarded the damage compensation of Bt2.46 million to Big C Supercentre and Bt1.5 million to Cencar

That puts a more acceptable settlement on it,Tesco will not be too upset,I shouldn't think?

[Payboy]

Current Nation article shows 4 million baht which is more realistic. The Nation

Tesco Lotus ordered to pay Bt4mn damage compensation to Big C group

The court also awarded the damage compensation of Bt2.46 million to Big C Supercentre and Bt1.5 million to Cencar

Cancel my order for Big C shares.

[webfact]

TESCO VS BIG C
Tesco considers appeal against compensation order
The Nation


Shopper at Tesco Lotus after Big C Supercentre has won the battle against its arch-rival Tesco Lotus, which has been ordered to pay Bt4 million damage compensation for unlawful marketing campaigns launched in 2011.

Court says ad campaigns unfair; Tesco may appeal

BANGKOK: -- Big C Supercentre has won the battle against its arch-rival Tesco Lotus, which has been ordered to pay Bt4 million damage compensation for unlawful marketing campaigns launched in 2011.

The Civil Court yesterday ruled that Tesco Lotus was guilty of violation of Article 421 of the Civil Code, following two major marketing campaigns years ago. The court also awarded the damage compensation of Bt2.46 million to Big C Supercentre and Bt1.5 million to Cencar.

While Big C hopes this ruling will pave the way for a similar verdict by the Trade Competition Committee, Tesco Lotus is considering appealing the decision, believing its campaigns were in line with the law and beneficial to consumers.

The case served as a victory for Big C Supercentre and Cencar, its shareholder, which brought the case to the court on August 15, 2011. In the civil lawsuit against Ek-Chai Distribution System, which operates Tesco Lotus, both companies said Tesco Lotus committed unfair trade practices and interference with the business of others by openly conducting two major marketing campaigns on separate occasions that were based on unauthorised use of logos, marketing tools and marketing mechanisms belonging to Big C without proper consent and authorisation. The campaigns' aim was to generate sales and increase Tesco's customer database at Big C's expense, the court found.

"Big C respects the Court's verdict and hopes that this case shall be a study into the standard and proper conduct of marketing that all companies should adhere to for the long-term benefits of consumers," Big C said in a statement.

It also hoped the outcome of this case would lead to the enactment of the Trade Competition Act for the first time since 1999 - which would reflect the important role of the Act in the promotion of competition through business conduct that was fair, creative, positive and respectful to business peers in the future.

It hoped that the Trade Competition Committee would take the Civil Court's ruling on this case into consideration when it deliberates it.

Meanwhile, Tesco Lotus said in its statement that it's pleased with yesterday's court ruling that the Competition Law was not violated. The company is a strong supporter of an effective competition policy that works in the consumer interest, the statement said. Competition brings benefits to consumers through greater choice, lower prices, better quality and improved service.

However, the company disagreed with the court's decision that its marketing activities caused harm to the plaintiffs and its award of compensation at around Bt4 million (against claims of Bt416 million). In 2011, Tesco Lotus launched marketing campaigns which gave greater choice and benefit to Thai consumers, it claimed.

It insisted that through 18 years of existence, it has conducted all sales promotions and campaigns transparently and in full compliance with local laws.


-- The Nation 2013-06-26

[glegolo]

We always find at least one item at big C higher at the till than on the shelf, can we su them? They used to give us the item free but we got so much stuff like that they now give us the money overcharged back. They normally blame the customers, why can't they accept responsibility, oh yes they are Thai!

You should insist on getting the item for free, it is stated on the big board above their customer service desk, works for me all the time.

Excuse a falang that doesn´t speak too much thai. Can you plse be helpful and tell me the writing in thai

that I should look for, in order to find this above the customers service desk!!! Or is it in english???

Thanks for your help

Glegolo

[Thai at Heart]

TESCO VS BIG C

Tesco considers appeal against compensation order

The Nation

Shopper at Tesco Lotus after Big C Supercentre has won the battle against its arch-rival Tesco Lotus, which has been ordered to pay Bt4 million damage compensation for unlawful marketing campaigns launched in 2011.

Court says ad campaigns unfair; Tesco may appeal

BANGKOK: -- Big C Supercentre has won the battle against its arch-rival Tesco Lotus, which has been ordered to pay Bt4 million damage compensation for unlawful marketing campaigns launched in 2011.

The Civil Court yesterday ruled that Tesco Lotus was guilty of violation of Article 421 of the Civil Code, following two major marketing campaigns years ago. The court also awarded the damage compensation of Bt2.46 million to Big C Supercentre and Bt1.5 million to Cencar.

While Big C hopes this ruling will pave the way for a similar verdict by the Trade Competition Committee, Tesco Lotus is considering appealing the decision, believing its campaigns were in line with the law and beneficial to consumers.

The case served as a victory for Big C Supercentre and Cencar, its shareholder, which brought the case to the court on August 15, 2011. In the civil lawsuit against Ek-Chai Distribution System, which operates Tesco Lotus, both companies said Tesco Lotus committed unfair trade practices and interference with the business of others by openly conducting two major marketing campaigns on separate occasions that were based on unauthorised use of logos, marketing tools and marketing mechanisms belonging to Big C without proper consent and authorisation. The campaigns' aim was to generate sales and increase Tesco's customer database at Big C's expense, the court found.

"Big C respects the Court's verdict and hopes that this case shall be a study into the standard and proper conduct of marketing that all companies should adhere to for the long-term benefits of consumers," Big C said in a statement.

It also hoped the outcome of this case would lead to the enactment of the Trade Competition Act for the first time since 1999 - which would reflect the important role of the Act in the promotion of competition through business conduct that was fair, creative, positive and respectful to business peers in the future.

It hoped that the Trade Competition Committee would take the Civil Court's ruling on this case into consideration when it deliberates it.

Meanwhile, Tesco Lotus said in its statement that it's pleased with yesterday's court ruling that the Competition Law was not violated. The company is a strong supporter of an effective competition policy that works in the consumer interest, the statement said. Competition brings benefits to consumers through greater choice, lower prices, better quality and improved service.

However, the company disagreed with the court's decision that its marketing activities caused harm to the plaintiffs and its award of compensation at around Bt4 million (against claims of Bt416 million). In 2011, Tesco Lotus launched marketing campaigns which gave greater choice and benefit to Thai consumers, it claimed.

It insisted that through 18 years of existence, it has conducted all sales promotions and campaigns transparently and in full compliance with local laws.

-- The Nation 2013-06-26

The ads were unfair. Boo hop.

The stupid thing tesco did was use the big c adverts. The practice of taking competitors is legal in many countries since it is deemed in consumer interest.

Since when would consumer interest outweigh that of a company. Respectful of peers in business.

Oh my lord. Please can we have some competition in this country.

[inquisitive]

Precedence set. Congratulations to Tesco-Lotus; not only can this fine be tax-active in the books but they can go and take all those clowns to the cleaners now which all operate with fake/wrong promises on pricing, quality, ingredients, life shelf - the works!

TESsie COhen (the founder's wife's name) must be proud of the local goings. Who's next!

I get so tired of posters posting about something, where they clearly have no knowledge!

The name TESCO originates from T.E.Stockwell (a teatrader) and Jack COhen.

Sir Jacks wife was named Sarah.

(Sigh) Jai yen yen, Soi 41. You should try to be a bit more tolerant. Perhaps the information given by Sydebolle wasn't perfect, but then again, neither was yours. If we were to assume that are correct in your history lesson, then you would have shown that Sydebolle obvjously had SOME knowledge since you agreed with at least some of the facts he presented. At the very least you agreed with him that Mr. Cohen was a founder and that he was married and that the CO in TESCO came from the name Cohen. Maybe a little less coffee and a little more humility is in order?

[Halion]

If it is a copyright breach in their use of marketing logos then ..wassup ? I though that that was accepted practice in Thailand.

Only accepted practise if you are a large Thai company with contacts in high places. Thai's do not like to play on a level plane and the hypocrisy of this issue only serves to highlight what a nepotistic cartel this country is.

[DGIE]

uses of logos, marketing tools and marketing mechanisms belonging to Big C without proper consent and authorisation with the aim to generate sales and increase Tesco's customer database at Big C's expenses.

Well, it is indeed an unfair to use logos of others but that doesn't mean they generated sales from there.

Whichever,whether Tesco or Big C is convenient to consumers, it is where they go. If I am near to Tesco, I will buy there

not because the product belongs to Big C.

[Thai at Heart]

As far as I see it's 4mn not 4bn baht.

The nation should issue a correction asap.

[Estrada]

From 1974 onwards Tesco were one of my major customers and I coined the phrase "SuperSave" for my service schemes. The dictionary acknowledges the words Supersave and SuperSaver as being coined between 1975 & 1980. Twenty years later Tesco Thailand started to use the term "SuperSave" with a registered trade mark logo for their discounted promotional products. I wrote to them complaining that they had no right to register the term as their trade mark as the phrase was a trading slogan belonging to my Company to which they acknowledged that I had "prior art" for the term especially as they were one of my customers. Another customer, British rail, started using "Supersaver" for their special fares. Now I see the extraordinary high award to Big C, it makes me think I should not have settled out of court.

[Tywais]

As far as I see it's 4mn not 4bn baht.

The nation should issue a correction asap.

Read above, two latest articles above show the correction.

[Thai at Heart]

From 1974 onwards Tesco were one of my major customers and I coined the phrase "SuperSave" for my service schemes. The dictionary acknowledges the words Supersave and SuperSaver as being coined between 1975 & 1980. Twenty years later Tesco Thailand started to use the term "SuperSave" with a registered trade mark logo for their discounted promotional products. I wrote to them complaining that they had no right to register the term as their trade mark as the phrase was a trading slogan belonging to my Company to which they acknowledged that I had "prior art" for the term especially as they were one of my customers. Another customer, British rail, started using "Supersaver" for their special fares. Now I see the extraordinary high award to Big C, it makes me think I should not have settled out of court.

You should sue Thai soccer commentators also.

[SOTIRIOS]

......only foreigners..........Thais can do no wrong........

....and if you beat Thais at anything....you must be punished...or destroyed.....that is the trait of a sociopath.....

[rookball]

uses of logos, marketing tools and marketing mechanisms belonging to Big C without proper consent and authorisation with the aim to generate sales and increase Tesco's customer database at Big C's expenses.

Well, it is indeed an unfair to use logos of others but that doesn't mean they generated sales from there.

Whichever,whether Tesco or Big C is convenient to consumers, it is where they go. If I am near to Tesco, I will buy there

not because the product belongs to Big C.

just because you go to one whichever that is convenient doesnt meant others would do that. its a fact that vouchers, prints out are all advertised, planned, printed, distributed, designed under big c expenses. if someone used the voucher on tesco, its pretty straight forward a generated sales on the particular item indirectly on big c expenses

[Thai at Heart]

uses of logos, marketing tools and marketing mechanisms belonging to Big C without proper consent and authorisation with the aim to generate sales and increase Tesco's customer database at Big C's expenses.

Well, it is indeed an unfair to use logos of others but that doesn't mean they generated sales from there.

Whichever,whether Tesco or Big C is convenient to consumers, it is where they go. If I am near to Tesco, I will buy there

not because the product belongs to Big C.

just because you go to one whichever that is convenient doesnt meant others would do that. its a fact that vouchers, prints out are all advertised, planned, printed, distributed, designed under big c expenses. if someone used the voucher on tesco, its pretty straight forward a generated sales on the particular item indirectly on big c expenses

Honouring vouchers from other retailers is very common in other countries.

It is deemed that consumer interest outweighs that of the retailer.

[transam]

Another hit on my HP sauce is looming eh.

[indyuk]

Courts are continuing to make market space for home grown retailers then?

[NoshowJones]

We always find at least one item at big C higher at the till than on the shelf, can we su them? They used to give us the item free but we got so much stuff like that they now give us the money overcharged back. They normally blame the customers, why can't they accept responsibility, oh yes they are Thai!

Yes, this happens all the time at Big C, I have lost count of the times they have tried to make me pay more than the price on the ticket. I really believe this is done deliberately as most people don't check their receipts.

[how241]

This story needs some details.

+1

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

I always love reading these kinds of local news reports where when I've finished, I've learned virtually nothing meaningful on the subject being reported on.

More broadly, given the courts here, I suspect it will be a long long time, if ever, before Tesco is forced to cough up 4 billion baht to its competitors.

[chooka]

Is this by any chance a farang company v's a Thai company?

Is this how international investors are treated for investing?

Edited June 26, 2013 by chooka

[Thai at Heart]

Is this by any chance a farang company v's a Thai company?

Is this how international investors are treated for investing?

The irony, is Tesco Lotus was set up originally between CP and Tesco, the CP sold out their shareholding, and now through buying Big C, CP ends up on the winning end of a court case against its former partners.

That said, 4mn is hardly going to break anyone's bank, but I will wait for the appeal. These things never move very fast.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

That said, 4mn is hardly going to break anyone's bank, but I will wait for the appeal. These things never move very fast.

The OP article says 4 BILLION.... not million.

[rotary]

Tesco is guilty...........of selling a bit higher quality merchandise than Big "C" in general. Notice I said a bit higher

[Tywais]

That said, 4mn is hardly going to break anyone's bank, but I will wait for the appeal. These things never move very fast.

The OP article says 4 BILLION.... not million.

Which has been updated by the Nation to 4mn. Typo or editing error from the Nation in the OP.