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] EUECJ C-533/06, [2008] ECR I-4231, [2008] ETMR 55, [2008] CEC 899, [2009] Bus LR 339, [2008] RPC 33, [2008] 3 CMLR 14
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
European
Citing:
At First instance – 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 . .
At Court of Appeal – 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 . .
Cited by:
Advocate General’s Opinion – 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264050