header-logo header-logo

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

Compare and contrast

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

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll