Click the case name for better results:

O2 Holdings Limited and O2 (UK) Limited v Hutchison 3G UK Limited: ECJ 12 Jun 2008

Use of trade mark in coparative advertising Europa Trade marks Directive 89/104/EEC Article 5(1) Exclusive rights of the trade mark proprietor Use of a sign identical with, or similar to, a mark in a comparative advertisement Limitation of the effects of a trade mark – Comparative advertising Directives 84/450/EEC and 97/55/EC Article 3a(1) Conditions under … Continue reading O2 Holdings Limited and O2 (UK) Limited v Hutchison 3G UK Limited: ECJ 12 Jun 2008

Lidl Belgium GmbH and Co KG v Etablissementen Franz Colruyt NV: ECJ 19 Sep 2006

ECJ (Approximation of Laws) – Directives 84/450/EEC and 97/55/EC – Misleading advertising – Comparative advertising – Conditions under which comparative advertising is permitted – Comparison of the general level of the prices charged by chains of stores – Comparison of the prices of a selection of products. Citations: C-356/04, [2006] EUECJ C-356/04, [2007] 1 CMLR … Continue reading Lidl Belgium GmbH and Co KG v Etablissementen Franz Colruyt NV: ECJ 19 Sep 2006

O2 Holdings Ltd and Another v Hutchison 3G Ltd: CA 5 Dec 2006

The court faced an allegation based on allegedly false comparative advertising, and referred to the European Court the question: ‘Where a trader, in an advertisement for his own goods or services uses a registered trade mark owned by a competitor for the purpose of comparing the characteristics (and in particular the price) of goods or … Continue reading O2 Holdings Ltd and Another v Hutchison 3G Ltd: CA 5 Dec 2006

O2 Holdings Ltd and Another v Hutchison 3G UK Ltd: ChD 11 Mar 2005

The idea of the ‘average consumer’, the arbiter of similarity in trade mark disputes, is a legal construct which tends to emphasise that similarity is an autonomous concept of European law. Similarity and likelihood of confusion are intimately bound together. The court declined to refer questions to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling before trial, … Continue reading O2 Holdings Ltd and Another v Hutchison 3G UK Ltd: ChD 11 Mar 2005

Lidl SNC v Vierzon Distribution SA: ECJ 7 Sep 2010

ECJ Opinion – Environment And Consumers – Comparative Advertising – Comparison of prices that a competing supermarket chain – Products meeting the same needs or having a common goal. Judges: Mengozzi AG Citations: C-159/09, [2010] EUECJ C-159/09 Links: Bailii Statutes: Directive 84/450/EEC Cited by: Opinion – Lidl SNC v Vierzon Distribution SA ECJ 18-Nov-2010 ECJ … Continue reading Lidl SNC v Vierzon Distribution SA: ECJ 7 Sep 2010

L’Oreal Sa and Others v Bellure Nv and Others: CA 21 May 2010

The claimant, manufacturers of perfumes, complained that the defendants, manufacturers of smell-alike products, were in breach of the Directive in marketing their products using lists which identified those of the claimants products to which they were intended to smell similar. Held: The claim succeeded. The defendant’s use of the registered marks in the comparison lists … Continue reading L’Oreal Sa and Others v Bellure Nv and Others: CA 21 May 2010

Karner v Troostwijk GmbH: ECJ 25 Mar 2004

ECJ Free movement of goods – Article 28 EC – Measures having equivalent effect – Advertising restrictions – Reference to the commercial origin of goods products – Goods from an insolvent company – Directive 84/450/EEC – Fundamental rights – Freedom of expression – Principle of proportionality Judges: Timmermans AP Citations: C-71/02, [2004] ECR I-3025, [2004] … Continue reading Karner v Troostwijk GmbH: ECJ 25 Mar 2004

O2 Holdings Limited and O2 (UK) Limited -v -Hutchison 3G UK Limited: ECJ 31 Jan 2008

ECJ (Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi) Directive 84/450/EEC Comparative advertising Use of a competitor’s trade mark or of a sign similar to a competitor’s trade mark in comparative advertising Applicability of Article 5(1) of Directive 89/104/EEC – Conditions on which comparative advertising is permitted Whether reference to the competitor’s trade mark indispensable Citations: C-533/06, [2008] … Continue reading O2 Holdings Limited and O2 (UK) Limited -v -Hutchison 3G UK Limited: ECJ 31 Jan 2008

De Landtsheer Emmanuel v Comite Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne: ECJ 19 Apr 2007

ECJ Approximation of Laws – Directives 84/450/EEC and 97/55/EC – Comparative advertising Identifying a competitor or the goods or services offered by a competitor Goods or services satisfying the same needs or with the same purpose Reference to designations of origin. Citations: [2007] EUECJ C-381/05, [2007] ECR I-3115, [2007] Bus LR 1484 Links: Bailii Statutes: … Continue reading De Landtsheer Emmanuel v Comite Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne: ECJ 19 Apr 2007

De Landtsheer Emmanuel SA v Comite Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne and Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin SA: ECJ 30 Nov 2006

ECJ (Approximation Of Laws) Opinion – Directives 84/450/EEC and 97/55/EEC – Comparative advertising – Concept – Identification of a competitor or of the goods or services offered by a competitor – Conditions governing the lawfulness of a comparison – Goods or services meeting the same needs or intended for the same purpose – Reference to … Continue reading De Landtsheer Emmanuel SA v Comite Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne and Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin SA: ECJ 30 Nov 2006

Pippig Augenoptik GmbH and Co. KG v Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH: ECJ 8 Apr 2003

ECJ Judgment – Approximation of laws – Directives 84/450/EEC and 97/55/EC – Misleading advertising – Conditions for comparative advertising to be lawful Citations: C-44/01, [2003] EUECJ C-44/01, [2003] ECR I-3095, [2004] All ER (EC) 1156, [2004] 1 CMLR 39 Links: Bailii Statutes: Directive 84/450/EEC, Directive 97/55/EC Cited by: Cited – Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd, Regina (on … Continue reading Pippig Augenoptik GmbH and Co. KG v Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH: ECJ 8 Apr 2003

Linhart v Hans Biffl: ECJ 24 Oct 2002

ECJ Approximation of laws – Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) – Directive 76/768/EEC relating to cosmetic products – Directive 84/450/EEC concerning misleading advertising – National legislation laying down restrictions on advertising. Judges: J-P. Puissochet, P Citations: C-99/01, [2002] EUECJ C-99/01 Links: Bailii European, … Continue reading Linhart v Hans Biffl: ECJ 24 Oct 2002

Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd and Others v Asda Stores Ltd: ChD 30 Jul 2010

The claimant complained of the defendant’s use of its trade marks alleging infringement and passing off when it relaunched its own optician services. Having had advance notice of the details of the proposed campaign, the claimants had launched their own pre-emptive campaign. They now admitted misuse of the confidential information acquired. Held: The claim succeeded … Continue reading Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd and Others v Asda Stores Ltd: ChD 30 Jul 2010

Lidl SNC v Vierzon Distribution SA: ECJ 18 Nov 2010

ECJ Directives 84/450/EEC and 97/55/EC – Conditions under which a comparative advertising is permitted – Price comparison based on selection of food products marketed by two competing retail store chains – Goods meeting the same needs or intended for the same purpose – Misleading advertising – Comparison based on a verifiable featureThe court summarised the … Continue reading Lidl SNC v Vierzon Distribution SA: ECJ 18 Nov 2010

Belgian Electronic Sorting Technology Nv v Bert Peelaers: ECJ 11 Jul 2013

best_bpECJ072013 ECJ Directives 84/450/EEC and 2006/114/EC – Misleading and comparative advertising – Definition of ‘advertising’ – Registration and use of a domain name – Use of metatags in a website’s metadata Ilesic P C-657/11, [2013] EUECJ C-657/11, [2013] WLR(D) 275 Bailii, WLRD Directive 2006/114/EC, Directive 84/450/EEC European, Media Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.512334

Interflora, Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another: ChD 22 May 2009

Each of the parties provided a service delivering flowers. The claimant had a trade mark, and the defendants each purchased the use of that trade mark and variations of it with a search engine (Google) so that a search under the trade mark produced references also to the defendants’ web-sites. The bids for these words … Continue reading Interflora, Inc and Another v Marks and Spencer Plc and Another: ChD 22 May 2009

Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National Plc and seven Others: ComC 24 Apr 2008

The Office sought a declaration that the respondent and other banks were subject to the provisions of the Regulations in their imposition of bank charges to customer accounts, and in particular as to the imposition of penalties or charges for the breach of the overdraft limits. Held: The relevant terms were not exempt from assessment … Continue reading Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National Plc and seven Others: ComC 24 Apr 2008

Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Independent Reviewer of Advertising Standards Authority Adjudications: Admn 10 Nov 2014

The two supermarkets had price matching comparison schemes. Sainburys complained that the Independent Reviewer’s decsion that the ASA’s response to is complant as to the Tesco scheme was itself flawed. They had complained that the selections for comparison made by Tesco were of a lower quality. The independent reviewer had acknowledged the different elements of … Continue reading Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Independent Reviewer of Advertising Standards Authority Adjudications: Admn 10 Nov 2014

L’Oreal SA, Lancome parfums et beaute and Cie, Laboratoires Garnier and Cie v Bellure NV, Malaika Investments Ltd, Starion International Ltd: ECJ 18 Jun 2009

loreal_bellureECJ2009 ECJ Approximation of laws – Trade marks Directive 98/104/EEC Article 5(1)(a) – Use of another person’s trade mark for identical goods in comparative advertising Article 5(2) – Unfair advantage taken of the reputation of a trade mark – Comparative advertising Directives 84/450/EEC and 97/55/EEC Article 3a(1) – Conditions under which comparative advertising is permitted … Continue reading L’Oreal SA, Lancome parfums et beaute and Cie, Laboratoires Garnier and Cie v Bellure NV, Malaika Investments Ltd, Starion International Ltd: ECJ 18 Jun 2009