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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll