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

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll