ASA Adjudication on Vax Ltd

Ad

An ad for the Vax Zero range of vacuum cleaner, which appeared in the Grattan catalogue, was headlined "Vax ZERO Zeroloss Technology". Text underneath stated "Some vacuum cleaners get blocked and lose suction while you are using them which reduces their cleaning performance. Vax Zero vacuums feature Zeroloss Technology ensuring sustained suction is improved to maximise cleaning performance". In a section entitled "Zeroloss technology - the benefits" four points were listed: "Sustained suction improved - greater cleaning performance Great for allergy sufferers - cleaner air passes through your machine into your environment ZERO bags to buy - saving you money ZERO filter replacement - less machine maintenance"; under those four claims an arrow led to the claim "Greater cleaning performance". The ad included details of four cleaners in the Zero range: “VZL - 201 Swift Zero bagless upright … VZL - 702 Performance Zero bagless cylinder … VZL - 501 Turboforce Zero bagless upright … VZL - 801 VX Zero bagless upright"; text accompanying an illustration of each of the four cleaners stated " ... Hygienic quick-release dirt disposal ...".

Issue

Dyson Ltd challenged whether:

1. the claim "ZERO filter replacement ..." could be substantiated, because they believed the instruction manual for the VZL - 801 VX Zero stated that it required the filter to be replaced once a year;

2. the claim "Hygienic quick-release dirt disposal ..." could be substantiated for all four cleaners and

3. the claim "Zeroloss Technology" misleadingly implied all four cleaners featured in the ad would not lose any suction in use, because they believed performance tests had shown the cleaners lost suction power.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Vax said the claim "ZERO filter replacement ..." was correct but the instruction manual for the VZL - 801 VX Zero was wrong. They said the filter was washable and lasted the life of the vacuum cleaner. They sent a sample of the filter to the ASA to show that it was the same type of filter as that used in the other three Vax Zero machines, the instruction manuals for which did not state that the filter needed replacing. They said they had arranged for the error in the instruction manual for the VZL - 801 VX Zero to be rectified. They had also notified their helpline staff to advise any customers phoning in about the error.

2. Vax pointed out that the method for emptying the dirt container of the VZL - 801 was clearly described in the instruction manual. They sent a copy of that manual, which stated that there were four main processes involved in emptying the dirt container: detach the dirt container from the vacuum cleaner and hold it over a waste bin; tap the container to loosen any dirt that might have attached to the separator; release the dirt by depressing the button at the top of the dirt container and finally close the dirt container. They believed the best way to close the container was to push on the clean underside of its hinged base, either by hand or by pressing it against the lip of the rubbish bin. Vax asserted that at no time was there any interaction between the user and the dirt. They believed the operation of releasing the dirt was "quick", because it took only a matter of seconds to action, and "hygienic", because the user had no interaction with the dirt.

Vax asserted that, for the other three cleaners (the VZL - 201 Swift Zero, the VZL - 501 Turboforce Zero and the VZL - 702 Performance Zero), the method of dirt disposal was still "quick-release", because it merely involved depressing a latch to release the outer bin contents then twisting a central dust chamber or releasing a central bung to dispose of the dust, a process they believed took only a few seconds.

They acknowledged that, because the user might come into contact with dust in emptying the central dust chamber, the process could be unhygienic. They said, as a result of the complaint, they had removed the word "hygienic" from the catalogue pages, carton artworks and machine graphics for all Zero models.

3. Vax argued that the claim "Zeroloss technology" per se carried no implied meaning about suction. They explained that the word "Zeroloss" was a registered trade mark and argued that the fact the Patent Office had allowed that meant the word carried no implied meaning. They argued that, under the relevant trade mark legislation (the Trade Marks Act 1994), it was not possible to obtain a trade mark registration for descriptive words, or words which described a product's characteristics, or words which indicated a product's quality or purpose.

Vax asserted that, in the context of the ad, "Zeroloss technology" related to a number of features, not solely to suction. They pointed out that, under the headline "Zeroloss technology - the benefits", the ad made clear the claim related to sustained suction improvement; cleaner air passing through the machine; no bags and no filters to replace. They argued that the last three features also related to "loss"; no loss in air quality, no loss of money relating to bag purchase and no loss in relation to manpower or anything else that would be required to replace filters. They also pointed out that the ad stated that those four "Zeroloss technology" features resulted in "Greater cleaning performance", not "No loss of suction".

Vax argued that the ad did not state that Vax machines would never lose suction. They believed it made clear that the "Zeroloss technology" had resulted in an improvement in the duration for which there would be a constant level of suction power and that was highlighted by the claims "sustained suction is improved" and "ensuring improved suction for longer".

Vax argued that, although they believed the ad did not imply no loss of suction, the Vax Zero machines did not lose suction in use when tested to an appropriate standard (the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 60312). Vax said they had used an independent testing house to test their machines according to the methodology and test limits of the IEC test procedure most relevant to measuring vacuum cleaner performance as the dust receptacle filled with dust. They said, in those tests, the Vax Zero machines did not lose suction in use. They sent a copy of the test results and said the IEC Standard had no test for measuring suction power as the dust receptacle filled with dust, only for measuring maximum air flow as the dust receptacle filled with dust.

Assessment

1. Not upheld

The ASA noted the claim "ZERO filter replacement ..." in the ad was correct but the instruction manual Dyson had seen incorrectly stated that the filter needed replacing. We noted Vax had arranged to amend that error. We considered that, because the filter did not need replacing, the claim was not misleading.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

2. Upheld

We noted the process of disposing of dirt with the VZL - 801 cleaner involved no contact between the hand of the operator and the dirt. We noted the process was actioned by detaching the dirt container, placing it over a bin and pressing the release button, and then replacing the dirt container. We considered that, because the user did not come into contact with the dirt, and because the disposal process merely involved pressing a button, Vax had substantiated the claim "Hygienic quick-release dirt disposal" in relation to the VZL - 801 cleaner.

We noted the process of disposing of dirt with the other three Zero cleaners involved depressing a latch to release the outer bin contents then twisting a central dust chamber or releasing a central bung, from inside the dirt bin, to dispose of the dust. We noted the process of disposing of the dust with those three cleaners might involve the user coming into contact with dirt. We considered that, because the dirt disposal process merely involved pressing a button and then twisting a cup or releasing a bung to dispose of the dust, Vax had substantiated that the disposal of dirt of those three cleaners was "quick-release". We also considered, however, that because the user might come into contact with dirt when disposing of the dust with those three cleaners, the claim "hygienic" was misleading. We welcomed Vaxs removal of the word "hygienic" in advertising for those three cleaners.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

3. Not upheld

We noted Vax's assertion that the claim "Zeroloss technology" referred to several features of the Vax Zero range of vacuum cleaners. We noted the ad stated the four main features of "Zeroloss Technology" (sustained suction improvement; cleaner air passing through the machine; no bags and no filters to replace) and considered that those features all had a connection to the word "loss" and made clear to readers Vax's intended meaning of the claim and that it did not refer only to suction. We also noted the ad did not state that the Zero range of cleaners would not lose suction but did state "sustained suction is improved" and "ensuring improved suction for longer". We considered that those claims made clear that Vax were not implying that their Zero range of cleaners would never lose any suction in use. We also noted the suction of the Vax Zero machines had been tested to IEC Standard 60312. We concluded that the claim "Zeroloss Technology" was unlikely to mislead.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach.

Action

We told Vax not to refer to the dirt disposal of the VZL - 201, VZL - 702 and VZL - 501 cleaners as hygienic.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)