Opinion Advocate General of ECJ in O2 v. Hutchison of 31 January 2008
Good news for advertisers. If the European Court follows the advice of the Advocate General, this means more possibilities to use a competitor’s trade mark in comparative advertising. It would be no matter of discussion anymore whether a correct comparative advertisement could still constitute a trade mark infringement. According to the A-G the use of a trade mark in comparative advertising is exhaustively covered by the Comparative Advertising Directive. The indispensability of the use for the purpose of identifying the competitor or his goods is no requirement. Use of a trade mark in comparative advertising does not fall within the scope of the Trade Mark Directive and therefore can not be considered a trade mark infringement. Thus, no risks of full compensation and reimbursement of the legal costs (including all lawyer’s fees) if the trademark or a similar sign is being depicted (contrary to the case of a trade mark infringement). Now let’s wait what the European Court will decide.… (Kim Braber)
|
office Emerald House Jozef Israëlskade 48-G Amsterdam, the Netherlands t +31 (0)20 - 305 3066 www.hoogenhaak.nl |
post PO Box 76780 1070 KB Amsterdam e info@hoogenhaak.nl f +31 (0)20 - 305 3069 chamber of commerce 34314579 |
Opinion Advocate General of ECJ in O2 v. Hutchison of 31 January 2008
Good news for advertisers. If the European Court follows the advice of the Advocate General, this means more possibilities to use a competitor’s trade mark in comparative advertising. It would be no matter of discussion anymore whether a correct comparative advertisement could still constitute a trade mark infringement. According to the A-G the use of a trade mark in comparative advertising is exhaustively covered by the Comparative Advertising Directive. The indispensability of the use for the purpose of identifying the competitor or his goods is no requirement. Use of a trade mark in comparative advertising does not fall within the scope of the Trade Mark Directive and therefore can not be considered a trade mark infringement. Thus, no risks of full compensation and reimbursement of the legal costs (including all lawyer’s fees) if the trademark or a similar sign is being depicted (contrary to the case of a trade mark infringement). Now let’s wait what the European Court will decide.… (Kim Braber)