header-logo header-logo

19 June 2008
Issue: 7326 / Categories: Legal News , EU
printer mail-detail

ECJ: comparative ads can use rival trade marks

Legal news

A trade mark owner cannot stop a rival using an identical or similar sign in a comparative advertisement where the use is not likely to confuse the public, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled.

In O2 Holdings Limited and O2 (UK) Limited v Hutchison 3G UK Limited, Hutchison 3G (H3G), included the name O2 and moving bubble imagery in an advert for its Threepay service.

O2, which owns two British trade marks consisting of a static picture of bubbles, brought proceedings for trade mark infringement.

The ECJ said a trade mark owner may prevent the use of a sign similar to his mark only if used: in the course of trade; without the consent of the mark owner; in respect of goods or services identical with, or similar to, those for which the mark is registered; in a way likely to confuse the public. The court said the first three conditions were satisfied but that the use by H3G of bubble images similar to the trade marks did not give rise to a likelihood of confusion on the part of consumers. O2’s case therefore failed.

Macfarlanes solicitor, Michael Walmsley, says: “A trade mark owner cannot object to use of marks similar to his trade mark in comparative advertisements unless he can show that the use of the mark causes a likelihood of confusion or unfairly takes advantage of or discredits his trade mark.”

Issue: 7326 / Categories: Legal News , EU
printer mail-details

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 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

Consumer credit law is heading for its biggest shake-up in 50 years, with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 set to yield much of its detailed statutory machinery to FCA rules
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
back-to-top-scroll