Estee Lauder Cosmetics GmbH and Co OHG v Lancaster Group GmbH: ECJ 13 Jan 2000

Europa Approximation of laws – Cosmetic products – Packaging and labelling – Directive 76/768 – Measures to prevent advertising attributing to cosmetic products characteristics which they do not possess – Ban on the importing or marketing of a cosmetic product whose name includes the term `lifting’ – Whether permissible – Condition – Whether such a name is misleading – To be assessed by the national courts (EC Treaty, Arts 30 and 36 (now, after amendment, Arts 28 EC and 30 EC); Council Directive 76/768, Art. 6(3))

‘It should be borne in mind that when it has fallen to the court, in the context of the interpretation of Directive 84/450, to weigh the risk of misleading consumers against the requirements of the free movement of goods, it has held that, in order to determine whether a particular description, trade mark or promotional description or statement is misleading, it is necessary to take into account the presumed expectations of an average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect (see, in particular, Gut Springenheide GmbH v Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises Steinfurt-Amt fur Lebensmittel-Uberwachung Case C-210/96 [1998] ECR1-4657 (para. 31)).’
C-220/98, [2000] IPandT 380, [2000] EUECJ C-220/98
Bailii
European
Cited by:
CitedBritish Airways Plc v Ryanair Limited ChD 25-Oct-2000
The claimant alleged that disparaging adverts by the defendant infringed its trade marks and amounted to the tort of malicious falsehood.
Held: There was no dispute that the mark had been used. The Act could not be used to prevent any use of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 August 2021; Ref: scu.162421