What Can a Business Promise in Advertising?
Businesses use slogans every day. Some promise better service, others promise better prices, and many try to create a strong emotional connection with consumers through short and memorable phrases.
But where is the legal line between a catchy marketing slogan and a misleading commercial statement?
This question was recently examined by the Israeli Supreme Court in a case involving the well-known retail chain Rami Levy and its slogan: “More Quality for Less Cost.”
The Court held that the slogan did not mislead the public. Instead, it functioned mainly as a general advertising statement and as a trademark-like identifier of the Rami Levy brand, rather than as a specific factual promise regarding the quality or price of each product.
The ruling provides important guidance for businesses, advertisers, brand owners, and legal professionals. It clarifies when promotional language may be considered permitted “puffery” and when a business may cross the line into consumer deception.
Read Our Reviews
A personal story: I ran into a small-but-urgent problem and started checking a few options on Google. Saar was the first I reached out to because of his informative content, and he replied on WhatsApp within 2 minutes. A 5-minute phone call and a two-hour wait later, what seemed like it would take months was resolved quickly and smoothly. Truly amazing. Thank you again!
At first, I was skeptical—just another lawyer making promises I doubted would be kept. Saar Gershoni proved me completely wrong. He explained exactly how to prove the copyright infringement on my video, documented everything professionally, , and the competitor removed the video and issued a written apology. He was patient and attentive despite my initial doubts, and in the end
A personal story: I ran into a small-but-urgent problem and started checking a few options on Google. Saar was the first I reached out to because of his informative content, and he replied on WhatsApp within 2 minutes. A 5-minute phone call and a two-hour wait later, what seemed like it would take months was resolved quickly and smoothly. Truly amazing. Thank you again!
The Class Action Against Rami Levy
The case began with a motion to certify a class action against Rami Levy Shivuk Hashikma.
The claimant argued that Rami Levy’s use of the slogan “More Quality for Less Cost” in connection with its private-label products was misleading under consumer protection law.
According to the claimant, the phrase “more quality” was inaccurate because some of the private-label products were manufactured by the same manufacturers that produced equivalent products for other brands. In other words, the claimant argued that there was no factual basis for presenting the products as being of higher quality.
The claimant also challenged the “less cost” element of the slogan, arguing that some of Rami Levy’s private-label products were not necessarily cheaper than comparable products sold by other retailers.
In addition, the claimant argued that Rami Levy’s website presented certain products under the label “Brand/Manufacturer: Rami Levy”, which could allegedly lead consumers to believe that Rami Levy was both the brand owner and the actual manufacturer of the products.
Need an Initial Consultation? Let's Talk!
Leave your details, and we'll get back to you shortly.
The District Court’s Approach
The District Court accepted most of the certification request.
It held that the slogan was not merely an empty advertising phrase. Rather, the court viewed it as containing clear factual statements regarding quality and price.
According to that approach, if Rami Levy used the slogan “More Quality for Less Cost,” it had to be able to support both parts of the statement. If some products were not cheaper than comparable alternatives, or if there was no proof that the products were actually of higher quality, the slogan could potentially amount to consumer deception.
The District Court also found that the way product information appeared on Rami Levy’s website could mislead consumers regarding the identity of the product manufacturer.
Rami Levy then filed a request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Reasonable Consumer Test
The Supreme Court took a different approach regarding the slogan.
Justice Ofer Grosskopf emphasized that the legal question should be examined through the eyes of the reasonable consumer.
In advertising law and consumer protection, the reasonable consumer test asks how an ordinary consumer would understand the statement in context. Would the consumer see it as a precise factual representation? Or would the consumer understand it as a general promotional slogan?
The Supreme Court explained that not every positive statement made in advertising is a legally binding promise. Businesses naturally use praise, exaggeration, and promotional language in order to attract customers.
The key question is whether the statement is specific, measurable, and factual — or whether it is general, vague, and promotional.
A direct comparison to a specific competing product, a concrete claim about price, or an informative representation about product quality may be treated more seriously. By contrast, broad and general language that is not clearly measurable will often be understood as advertising puffery.
A personal story: I ran into a small-but-urgent problem and started checking a few options on Google. Saar was the first I reached out to because of his informative content, and he replied on WhatsApp within 2 minutes. A 5-minute phone call and a two-hour wait later, what seemed like it would take months was resolved quickly and smoothly. Truly amazing. Thank you again! At first, I was skeptical—just another lawyer making promises I doubted would be kept. Saar Gershoni proved me completely wrong. He explained exactly how to prove the copyright infringement on my video, documented everything professionally, , and the competitor removed the video and issued a written apology. He was patient and attentive despite my initial doubts, and in the end A personal story: I ran into a small-but-urgent problem and started checking a few options on Google. Saar was the first I reached out to because of his informative content, and he replied on WhatsApp within 2 minutes. A 5-minute phone call and a two-hour wait later, what seemed like it would take months was resolved quickly and smoothly. Truly amazing. Thank you again!Read Our Reviews
Why the Slogan Was Not Considered Misleading
The Supreme Court held that Rami Levy’s slogan was a clear example of permitted advertising puffery.
The phrase “More Quality for Less Cost” was considered broad, general, and promotional. It did not identify a specific competing product. It did not refer to a specific price comparison. It did not promise that every single private-label product would always be superior in quality and lower in price than every comparable product in the market.
In practice, the Court found that the slogan operated more like a brand identifier than a detailed factual promise.
This distinction is important.
A slogan can help consumers recognize a business. It can express the general positioning of a brand. It can communicate a commercial message. But that does not necessarily mean that every word in the slogan should be treated as a strict legal warranty.
The Supreme Court therefore ruled that the claims relating to the slogan should not have been approved as part of the class action.
Need an Initial Consultation? Let's Talk!
Leave your details, and we'll get back to you shortly.
Conclusion: The Meaning of the Decision
This decision does not bring the entire legal dispute to an end, but it does provide an important early indication of the court’s approach. The ruling makes clear that a certain degree of similarity between products is not enough, on its own, to establish infringement of a registered design — especially in competitive markets where similar design language is a natural part of the industry.
The decision also reinforces the balance between protecting intellectual property rights and preserving fair competition.
In addition, the case highlights the importance of evidence and timing. A delay in filing an urgent request for a preliminary injunction may weaken the argument that immediate court intervention is necessary.
Ultimately, the rejection of the request allowed Magic to continue doing what it does best: marketing quality water dispensers at accessible prices.
Commercial disputes can place significant pressure on a business within days. Early legal guidance, a clear litigation strategy, and a strong understanding of intellectual property law can make the difference between a halted business operation and continued growth.
For professional legal advice regarding preliminary injunctions, registered designs, design infringement, or intellectual property litigation, you are welcome to contact our office.
When Online Product Information Becomes More Dangerous Than a Slogan
While the Supreme Court rejected the claim regarding the slogan, it took a different view regarding the product information displayed on Rami Levy’s website.
The Court held that the phrase “Brand/Manufacturer: Rami Levy” could create a genuine risk of consumer deception.
Unlike a broad advertising slogan, this was a concrete piece of product information. It appeared in a setting where consumers were likely relying on the website to understand what they were buying.
The Court emphasized that in the age of online commerce, consumers often rely almost entirely on the information presented on a website. If that information is unclear, incomplete, or ambiguous, it can affect the consumer’s purchasing decision.
Even if the true manufacturer appears on the product packaging, that may not necessarily cure the misleading impression created online. A consumer purchasing through a website may not see the packaging before completing the purchase.
For that reason, the Supreme Court allowed the claim concerning the product information on the website to continue.
A personal story: I ran into a small-but-urgent problem and started checking a few options on Google. Saar was the first I reached out to because of his informative content, and he replied on WhatsApp within 2 minutes. A 5-minute phone call and a two-hour wait later, what seemed like it would take months was resolved quickly and smoothly. Truly amazing. Thank you again! At first, I was skeptical—just another lawyer making promises I doubted would be kept. Saar Gershoni proved me completely wrong. He explained exactly how to prove the copyright infringement on my video, documented everything professionally, , and the competitor removed the video and issued a written apology. He was patient and attentive despite my initial doubts, and in the end A personal story: I ran into a small-but-urgent problem and started checking a few options on Google. Saar was the first I reached out to because of his informative content, and he replied on WhatsApp within 2 minutes. A 5-minute phone call and a two-hour wait later, what seemed like it would take months was resolved quickly and smoothly. Truly amazing. Thank you again!Read Our Reviews
The Legal Difference Between Puffery and Consumer Deception
The ruling creates a useful distinction for businesses.
General marketing slogans are not automatically misleading simply because they use positive, exaggerated, or ambitious language. Consumers understand that advertising often includes promotional expressions.
However, once a business chooses to provide concrete product information, the legal standard becomes stricter.
A vague slogan such as “the best choice for your family” or “more value for your money” will often be treated differently from a specific statement such as “manufactured by X,” “contains 100% natural ingredients,” or “cheaper than all competing products.”
The more specific and factual the statement is, the greater the legal responsibility to ensure that it is accurate.
Need an Initial Consultation? Let's Talk!
Leave your details, and we'll get back to you shortly.
The Trademark Value of Advertising Slogans
Beyond consumer protection law, the ruling also highlights an important intellectual property issue.
A strong slogan is not only a marketing tool. In many cases, it can also become a valuable brand asset.
When a slogan becomes associated with a specific business, it may function as a trademark. It can help consumers identify the commercial source of goods or services, even without seeing the company’s name.
This is exactly the role of trademark law: protecting signs, names, phrases, logos, and other identifiers that allow the public to distinguish one business from another.
For many companies, a successful slogan requires significant investment. Businesses spend time, money, and creative resources developing short phrases that capture their identity and remain in the public’s memory.
When such a slogan becomes distinctive, registering it as a trademark can provide meaningful legal protection.
A registered trademark may allow the business to prevent competitors from using identical or confusingly similar slogans, protect the reputation attached to the brand, and preserve the commercial value created through marketing investment.
Why Businesses Should Protect Their Slogans
Many business owners understand the importance of protecting their company name and logo, but overlook the legal value of their slogan.
This can be a mistake.
A slogan may become one of the most recognizable elements of a brand. It may appear in advertisements, packaging, websites, social media campaigns, radio spots, television commercials, and point-of-sale materials.
If the slogan gains recognition, competitors may try to imitate it or use similar language in a way that creates confusion.
Trademark registration can help prevent this.
It turns the slogan from a marketing phrase into a protected legal asset. It gives the business stronger tools to defend its brand identity and act against unauthorized use.
A personal story: I ran into a small-but-urgent problem and started checking a few options on Google. Saar was the first I reached out to because of his informative content, and he replied on WhatsApp within 2 minutes. A 5-minute phone call and a two-hour wait later, what seemed like it would take months was resolved quickly and smoothly. Truly amazing. Thank you again! At first, I was skeptical—just another lawyer making promises I doubted would be kept. Saar Gershoni proved me completely wrong. He explained exactly how to prove the copyright infringement on my video, documented everything professionally, , and the competitor removed the video and issued a written apology. He was patient and attentive despite my initial doubts, and in the end A personal story: I ran into a small-but-urgent problem and started checking a few options on Google. Saar was the first I reached out to because of his informative content, and he replied on WhatsApp within 2 minutes. A 5-minute phone call and a two-hour wait later, what seemed like it would take months was resolved quickly and smoothly. Truly amazing. Thank you again!Read Our Reviews
Practical Lessons From the Rami Levy Decision
The Rami Levy ruling offers several important lessons for businesses and advertisers.
First, general promotional slogans are usually allowed, especially when consumers are likely to understand them as marketing language rather than factual promises.
Second, businesses should be much more careful when presenting specific product information, particularly on e-commerce websites.
Third, wording matters. A phrase that seems harmless from a marketing perspective may carry legal risk if it creates a misleading impression.
Fourth, successful slogans should be treated as intellectual property assets. If a slogan is central to the business’s identity, trademark registration should be seriously considered.
Need an Initial Consultation? Let's Talk!
Leave your details, and we'll get back to you shortly.
Conclusion: Advertising Builds a Brand, but Legal Protection Preserves It
The Supreme Court’s decision shows that advertising language must be examined in context.
A slogan can be bold, memorable, and promotional without necessarily being misleading. At the same time, businesses must be careful when presenting factual information to consumers, especially in digital environments where purchasing decisions are made quickly and based on limited information.
For brand owners, the ruling also serves as a reminder: a strong slogan is more than a creative sentence. It can become a valuable business asset.
A good slogan can build recognition.
A registered trademark can protect it.
If your business has invested in a brand name, slogan, product identity, or commercial message, it is important to examine whether these assets can and should be protected under trademark law.
Professional legal guidance can help you understand the risks, avoid misleading advertising claims, and build a stronger legal foundation for your brand.
