United States: Mahindra Tractor's Appeal Of NAD Decision Put Out To Pasture

NARB panel affirms Division’s changes to sales, warranty and product superlatives

Tractorstruck

John Deere isn’t just a brand. In some parts of the United States, it’s a culture.

Given the widespread prevalence of John Deere products as part of a culture, the arrival of India’s Mahindra tractors in the United States back in 1994 sparked a serious rivalry between the brands. Given Mahindra’s overseas origin, it’s unlikely that the same cultural references in the United States will ever build up around the import brand, but the new arrival is still gaining attention as a popular competitor to John Deere.

Marketing and Warranty Claims

Unsurprisingly, John Deere pays close attention to Mahindra’s advertising. Back in June 2018, the company took exception to several of Mahindra’s marketing claims before the National Advertising Division (NAD). Mahindra appealed NAD’s findings before the National Advertising Review Board (NARB), which reached its own conclusions this February.

The claims under consideration included Mahindra’s boast that the brand was the “World’s #1 Selling Tractor” and the “#1 Selling Tractor in the World.” Additionally, John Deere objected to the Mahindra warranty claims, including the tags “#1 in protecting your back … with the industry’s best 5-year warranty” and “Best and industry’s leading limited powertrain warranties.”

NAD’s original ruling held that Mahindra “provided a reasonable basis” for its sales claims – the company relied on the Agricultural Equipment Statistics Committee of the Association of Equipment Manufacturers’ standard definition of “tractor.” But NAD requested that Mahindra disclose this definition when making its claim, along with the information that the claim was based on Mahindra tractor sales worldwide when combined with the sale of its Swaraj-branded tractors in India.

As for the warranty claims, NAD recommended that they be discontinued, although Mahindra was not precluded “from making truthful claims regarding any specific attribute in which Mahindra’s warranty is superior over its competitors, including the length of the warranty.” Finally, claims that Mahindra’s oil provided “Superior Protection” should be discontinued based on the lack of supporting evidence.

The Takeaway

NARB agreed with NAD’s recommendations regarding its sales figures and requested that Mahindra’s claim that “over [2.1] million Mahindra tractors sold worldwide to date” should specify the time period for the sales.

Mahindra had argued before NAD that its “best warranty” claims were puffery, but the NARB agreed with the original decision recommending that the claims be discontinued because certain types of tractors were not covered by the warranty provisions in question. Truthful claims about parts of the warranty could still be made in the future.

Finally, NARB rejected Mahindra’s argument that its oil claims were puffery, finding “these were objectively provable claims requiring substantiation,” and letting NAD’s original finding stand.

This case is a good example of how a brand can use the self-regulatory process to police its competitors, protect its brand and avoid the expense of litigation.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.