header-logo header-logo

Compare and contrast

04 January 2007 / Helen Hart
Issue: 7254 / Categories: Features , EU , Intellectual property
printer mail-detail

A recent European Court of Justice ruling provides useful guidance on what constitutes misleading advertising, says Helen Hart

The Comparative Advertising Directive 97/55/EC (the Directive) was implemented in the UK in April 2000 by the Control of Misleading Advertisements (Amendment) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/914) (the regulations). There have been few cases concerning the Directive; consequently, Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co KG v Establissementen Franz Colruyt NV: C-356/04 [2006] All ER (D) 92 (Sep) is of significant assistance in clarifying its interpretation.

The Directive permits a comparative advertisement as long as it fulfils particular conditions, including:
 it is not misleading;
 it compares goods or services meeting the same needs or intended for the same purposes;
 it objectively compares one or more
material, relevant, verifiable and representative features of those goods and services which may include price;
 it does not create confusion in the market place between the advertiser and a competitor, or between the advertiser’s trade marks, trade names, other distinguishing marks, goods or services and those of the competitor; and
 it does not present goods or services

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll