The court examined the development of the law in relation to comparative advertising. Jacob J said: ‘Prior to the coming into force of the Trade Marks Act 1994 comparative advertising using a registered trade mark of a competitor was, subject to minor exceptions involving the use of a company name, forbidden by section 4(1) of … Continue reading Vodafone Group Plc v Orange Personal Communications Services Ltd: ChD 1997
The court set out the applicable legal principles in trade mark infringement. The court considered the elements necessary to establish a defence under s10(6): The primary objective of section 10(6) of the 1996 Act is to permit comparative advertising . . As long as the use of a competitor’s mark is honest, there is nothing … Continue reading Cable and Wireless plc v British Telecommunications plc: ChD 1998
A party complaining about the use of a trade mark in a comparative advert is required to show some dishonesty. Section 10(6) of the Act was described as ‘home grown’ rather than derived directly from the Directive. Judges: Laddiie J Citations: Times 08-Feb-1996,  RPC 307 Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 10(6) Cited by: Cited … Continue reading Barclays Bank Plc v RBS Advanta: ChD 8 Feb 1996
A company which was using a competitor’s trade mark in the context of an advert, which made misleading and derogatory comparisons, failed the ‘honest practice’ test, and was abusing the rights to use the other company’s mark under the Act. In this case however each party was guilty of such failures. Times 08-Feb-1999, Gazette 17-Feb-1999, … Continue reading Emaco Limited, Aktiebolaget Electrolux v Dyson Appliances Ltd: PatC 26 Jan 1999
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 another’s trade mark in comparitive advertising. In this case the advertisement, though … Continue reading British Airways Plc v Ryanair Limited: ChD 25 Oct 2000
The claimant alleged trade mark infringement by the respondents by the use of a mark in a pop-up advert.
Held: The own-name defence to trade mark infringement is limited. Some confusion may be allowed if overall the competition was not unfair . .