A fig leaf for a washing powder

In 1931 Gottlieb Duttweiler declared war on the market leader Persil by launching the Migros washing powder Ohä – Ohne Hänkel (without Hänkel). When a judge ordered him to change the packaging, he remained defiant, making only minimal alterations.
As most suppliers boycott Migros AG, Gottlieb Duttweiler is forced to go into production himself. Thus, in November 1931, he launches the washing powder Ohä, the first non-food, own-label product. The name is short for ‘Ohne Hänkel’ and is thus an unmistakable side-swipe at the market-leading washing powder Persil from Henkel. The instructions on the packaging end cheekily: “Instructions for use are the same as for the well-known Persil.” In contrast with Persil, which costs CHF1, Ohä costs just 50 cents. The launch of the washing powder is the start of a long campaign by Duttweiler against what he considers to be overpriced brand products: “Dear Persil, spring is in the air,” he gibes, “because of the wicked Migros, the Swiss no longer want to pay fantasy prices. Due to that destructive enlightenment, the good old days of brand worship are unfortunately past.” He asks the “honoured housewives” for their solidarity, as by purchasing Ohä, they can help to regulate the “Persil price”. He provocatively calls Henkel a “large capitalistic foreign company which excessively and unconditionally takes advantage of its position of power” and identifies Ohä as a “substitute for Persil” that “is equal to Persil”. Alluding to Henkel's propensity to sue, he writes emotionally: “After 180 hard battles due to Persil, the bold Ohä enters the ring. A dwarf against a giant!” Gottlieb Duttweiler knows very well that he puts his business at risk with his – as he says himself – “rather loud language”. And Henkel does in fact sue him in the commercial court of St. Gallen. When the Ohä packaging is banned by the court, Duttweiler jokingly covers the words Hänkel and Persil with a fig leaf. But Henkel also sues over this – this time in Zurich – and even claims compensation of CHF10,000 for infringement of trademark and unfair competition. The commercial court orders Duttweiler to change the packaging again, but apart from that, it rebuffs Henkel. Both sides put in an appeal to the Federal Court and Duttweiler announces, noting the rapidly increasing turnover of Ohä: “As long as the customers continue to stand together, then nothing can happen to Migros.” In its 25-page decision, the Federal Court describes and compares every detail of the packaging of Persil and Ohä and concludes that the Ohä packaging can remain as it is. However, it forbids Duttweiler from mentioning the names Henkel and Persil in his advertisements and forces him to pay CHF500 in compensation. The amount is laughable compared with the publicity and the huge vote of sympathy throughout Switzerland that the process has brought about. Ohä keeps its name until 1949, when it is renamed Linda maximal.