header-logo header-logo

Comparative matters

23 October 2008
Issue: 7342 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

How much scope do advertisers have to use comparative trademarks? Ask Hamish Porter & Louisa Albertini

Comparative advertising, where goods or services offered by a competitor are identified by reference to a registered trade mark, can cause great concern to trade mark owners as their competitors normally seek to make unfavourable comparisons with their own goods or services, or to take advantage of being associated with the market leader's brand. The UK courts have recently requested guidance from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on the extent to which comparative advertising can be used.
Marking one's territory

The Trade Marks Directive (TMD), (First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, to approximate the laws of the member states relating to trade marks), provides that a trade mark owner is entitled under certain conditions to prevent third parties from using a sign which is identical or similar to his trade mark, including use in advertising. In contrast, the Comparative Advertising Directive—Council Directive 84/450/ EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Jackson Lees Group—five promotions

Private client division announces five new partners

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Taylor Wessing—Max Millington

Banking and finance team welcomes partner in London

NEWS
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
back-to-top-scroll