header-logo header-logo

ECJ: comparative ads can use rival trade marks

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

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

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