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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll