THE LAW BEHIND THE HUSTLE-Creamier, Less Sugar… Can Your Competitor Do It Better and Get Away With It?

 

 

While watching TV recently, I made a very interesting observation that got me thinking deeply about business, branding, advertisement and the law. There’s a well-known gari brand in Ghana that produces a creamy, ready-to-enjoy gari soakings mix, Kivo 4in1 Gari Soaking Mix. It’s widely consumed and appreciated, but over time, some consumers of the product began expressing dissatisfaction,  especially regarding the sugar content. Many consumers complained that the product was “too sweet” and as the feedback became more consistent, the company responded by introducing a new variant: Kivo Gari Soaking Mix Low Sugar. It was  a clear attempt to win back health-conscious consumers and adapt to what the market was asking for.

Not long after that,I noticed a new player entering the scene, H&H 4in1 Gari Soaking Mix. This new garri brand launched their own version of the product and interestingly, began promoting it with bold claims like “creamier” and “less sugar.” They didn’t mention Kivo by name, but the messaging was too familiar to me. From the timing, to the positioning and even the language, I believe they were taking direct aim at Kivo’s product weaknesses.In doing so, they were not only throwing subtle shade but also using the very feedback Kivo had received to improve their own product offering. It felt bold, competitive and a little provocative which immediately led me to wonder: can Kivo sue? Is there a legal implication to this?
In my opinion, what the new brand did isn’t illegal but  strategic. I don’t believe it’s unlawful to pay attention to another company’s public weaknesses and build a product that solves the exact problems their customers are complaining about. It’s a reminder to all of us that the market is listening and it rewards those who listen faster and act smarter. Unless the new brand lied, copied or deliberately misled people into thinking their product was Kivo’s, I don’t think there’s a legal claim here. If anything, this should be a wake-up call to entrepreneurs. Your business is only as protected as the action you take when feedback starts rolling in. Improve your product before someone else does.

Now, let’s look at this from a legal lens. The move that the new brand made falls under what’s known as comparative advertising. It’s when one product is marketed by comparing it  directly or indirectly  to another existing one. In Ghana and most jurisdictions, comparative advertising is legal, provided it meets certain standards. The comparison must be truthful, it must not mislead the public, it must not defame the competitor and it must not create confusion between the two brands. So long as the new gari brand stayed within those boundaries, their positioning is legally acceptable. Claiming “creamier” or “less sugar” is fine especially if they aren’t using Kivo’s name or logo.
 
The use of the word “creamier” also matters. It’s what the law calls puffery. Puffery is a  promotional language that is subjective and opinion-based. Words like “nicer,” “tastier” or “better” don’t usually carry legal consequences unless they’re used to spread lies or deliberately damage a brand’s reputation. In this case, “creamier” is a harmless marketing word and  it’s not a factual accusation.

Now, let’s talk about the part that might sting a little. The idea that the new company listened to consumer complaints about Kivo and used them to build something better. In my opinion, that’s not theft, it’s business. Unless they had access to confidential trade secrets, copied packaging or tried to deceive people, they’ve done nothing wrong. In fact, they did what many brands fail to do. They paid attention to the public and responded with a product that directly addressed the demand.

Of course, there are boundaries. If the new garri brand had used Kivu’s logo, slogan, color palette, or packaging design, that would fall under “passing off” or trademark infringement and yes, Kivo could successfully sue. But from what I’ve seen, no  lines have been crossed.

From a legal standpoint You can’t sue someone just because they improved where you didn’t. That’s not grounds for litigation.  It’s a sign that you need to innovate faster. The law won’t protect your weaknesses, but it will protect your identity. That’s why every entrepreneur needs to safeguard their brand through trademarks, product differentiation and constant innovation.

This observation left me inspired, honestly. It’s a real-life example of how competition forces brands to evolve and how legal knowledge helps you understand what’s fair and what’s foul. My advice to every MSME owner? Monitor the market, listen to your customers, fix your weak spots and protect your brand legally. Because if you won’t do it first, your competitor just might.