The die was cast. Trademark owners have been limited in their possibilities to call upon their trademarks, when attacking comparitive advertising.
For example, the clear use of a competitor’s device or a variant of a slogan can no longer be stopped by the trademark owner by calling on trademark rights. On 12 June the ECJ decided in the telecoms case O2/H3G that there is only one reason for the trademark owner to use its trademarks against an unwanted comparitive advertising: in case of confusion between the trademark owner and the competitor who compares its goods or services. And this will seldomly be the case, as the comparitive advertisor does not wish to cause any confusion. In fact, the advertiser only wants to point out to the consumer the advantages of its own product. This ECJ judgment increases the possibilities for advertisers of using the competitor’s trademark or look-alikes of this trademark in comparitive advertising.
Of course a comparison must still not be misleading and must apply to similar products or services. Infringers of these rules can still expect problems for violating the Misleading Advertising Act. Moreover, the comparison must not be depreciatory.
‘Playing’ with the compared trademark is now within reach, without the risk that a trademark infringement is the case, as long as no confusion is caused. Any financial risks that go with a trademark infringement (full recovery of procedural costs, including the trademark owner’s legal fees) have been ruled out. Without any doubt this judgment will affect the European advertising community.
Ebba Hoogenraad
|
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 |
The die was cast. Trademark owners have been limited in their possibilities to call upon their trademarks, when attacking comparitive advertising.
For example, the clear use of a competitor’s device or a variant of a slogan can no longer be stopped by the trademark owner by calling on trademark rights. On 12 June the ECJ decided in the telecoms case O2/H3G that there is only one reason for the trademark owner to use its trademarks against an unwanted comparitive advertising: in case of confusion between the trademark owner and the competitor who compares its goods or services. And this will seldomly be the case, as the comparitive advertisor does not wish to cause any confusion. In fact, the advertiser only wants to point out to the consumer the advantages of its own product. This ECJ judgment increases the possibilities for advertisers of using the competitor’s trademark or look-alikes of this trademark in comparitive advertising.
Of course a comparison must still not be misleading and must apply to similar products or services. Infringers of these rules can still expect problems for violating the Misleading Advertising Act. Moreover, the comparison must not be depreciatory.
‘Playing’ with the compared trademark is now within reach, without the risk that a trademark infringement is the case, as long as no confusion is caused. Any financial risks that go with a trademark infringement (full recovery of procedural costs, including the trademark owner’s legal fees) have been ruled out. Without any doubt this judgment will affect the European advertising community.
Ebba Hoogenraad