STILL ON PACKAGING WITH BRANDED CANS OR CONTAINERS OF OTHER COMPANIES

Empty Branded Containers of Different Companies

Before delving into this discussion, let me note that the discourse will focus on two different scenarios associated with the issue at hand: using branded containers of other companies to package. It is a follow up on two previous publications on the subject matter. In case you did not join the discourse from the beginning no qualms, you can do so by clicking the link below to assess the first publication and through it assess the second one. Please click here…. https://www.belfordscorelines.com/2024/06/packaging-with-branded-empty-cans-or.html

To you the first timer on this discussion and those that followed from the beginning, including those visiting the Platform Scoreline for the first time, we say welcome.

Done with the above, let us begin the discourse. On the strength of this, it is vital to note that one of the scenarios that plays out on the issue of using the branded containers of other companies to package is where an Individual, Group or Company engages in the act, using other companies brands to package own products. In this scenario, those that indulge in it do so using branded but “used” Cans or other forms of Containers of other companies. They do not pretend that the products inside the branded container is the product of the original owners of the brand, but theirs.

Make no mistake about this. The perpetrators do not in any form claim ownership of the branded Containers, but the product inside the Containers, that is the content. In this case the buyer is not deceived, in terms of the product, the content inside the brand. What the buyer paid for or is paying for is known to him/her. At least there is no deceit in the form of making the buyer to think or believe that he/she is buying the product of the real brand owners. Thus, the buyer’s transaction with the seller is based on awareness or knowledge of who the real maker of the product is.

In this scenario, you will agree that there is no case of adultration of the product of the original owner of the brands.

The second scenario that plays out on the issue of using branded containers of other companies to package is where the Individual, Group or Company engages in the use of other company’s brands for packaging own product but pretend to the buyer that what is contained inside the container is the product of the real owner of the brand.

In this case the buyer transacts with the seller, believing that he/she is in a deal with the real brand owner. The perpetrator makes the buyer to believe that the brand and the content: product inside the container belongs to the original owner of the brand. Again, make no mistake, here it is quite obvious that the buyer is deceived.  To say the least, the real intent of the seller is to deceive.

To carry out their dasterly act and perpetuate it perfectly, beat all possible loopholes likely to be identified in their action, some of the perpetrators go as far as producing the Cans or Containers new; and equally carry out other activities on the brand that make it look exactly like the original brands and the product. Such other acts include sealing the Cans and other forms of containers the same way the real owners do.

The idea behind presenting the two scenarios in this publication is not in any way to differentiate the effects each of them has on the society; or the organizations whose brands are toyed with, image badly damaged, whose products and entire operations are put to risk.

The idea also is not to make any excuses for any of the two groups and therefore, in a way downplay the effects of any of the two senerios, in which case condemn one group and offer excuses for the other. Far from that, I do not intend by any stretch of the imagination to attach any form of weight on the ugly operations of the two sets of parasites. I am yet to identify any benefits in the two sets of operators. Of a truth their actions are demaging and destructive.

Having made the above clarifications, it worths stating the obvious, that the need to separate the two can never be overemphasized. It will among other benefits enable the society, especially her gate keepers to reconsider the approaches adopted over time in fighting the menace. It could be that the situation is not properly understood, as a result the right antidote is not applied. I do not harbour any trepidations in my conclusion that the two will not require the same approach in providing a solution.

Consider a situation where the efforts of a few committed and hardworking people bent on killing or eliminating mosquitos from their environment decide to deploy the services of gun bearers. Something great may have been done but I will not say the same thing with regard to the result or achievement, real or intentional…

The discussion is continuing… Thanks for reading. Keep reading Scoreline

Nnabugwu Chizoba