Skip Navigation

Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 2008 3(5):284-285; doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpn052
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by England, P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author (2008). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved

Current Intelligence

Advocate General says comparative advertising is not a matter of trade mark law

Paul England
Herbert Smith LLP, London

Case C-533/06, O2 Holdings Limited and O2 (UK) Limited v Hutchison 3G UK Limited, 31 January 2008, on a reference for preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal [2006] EWCA Civ 1656

According to Advocate General Mengozzi, trade mark infringement is not relevant in assessing the legality of a third party's use of an identical trade mark or similar sign in comparative advertising, but such advertising is governed exhaustively by Article 3a of the Misleading Advertising Directive (84/450), as amended by the Comparative Advertising Directive (97/55) (‘CAD’).

Correspondence: Email: paul.england{at}herbertsmith.com


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.