Use of Competitors? Trade Marks and Comparative Advertising in the United Kingdom and Europe
Introduction
Comparative advertising takes place when one trader’s business is compared to another trader’s business with reference to their trade mark or trade name. The advertisement usually presents comparisons of price and particular qualities of goods, intended to inform consumers that the second trader’s goods or services are somehow superior. The comparisons are most frequently made to the products or services of a leader in the market.
There are various ways in which a trader can undertake comparative advertising, including:
referring to a competitor by name;
referring to a competitor’s trade mark;
not referring specifically to the competitor by name, but referring to ‘the leading brand’ where consumers will know what that leading brand is; or
stating which products are compatible with those of a competitor and issuing a table listing the serial numbers of each party.
For years there have been a number of questions raised in relation to the legality of comparative advertising and whether it should be permitted. Fair and honest Advertisements did not cause any harm were therefore lawful. This position stemmed from the introduction of Comparative Advertising Directive (EEC) (Council Directive 97/55 amending The Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive (Council Directive 84/450) (the ‘Directive’) provides guidance as to the boundaries of comparative advertising and provide strict criteria that an advert must meet in order to be lawful.
Comparative advertising and the Directive on Comparative Advertising
Comparative advertising is defined by Article 2 of Directive 84/450 as:
“… any advertising which explicitly or by implication identifies a competitor or goods or services offered by a competitor.”
Furthermore, Article 3 provides a list of criteria where comparative advertising will be allowed:
“ …
(1) it is not misleading … ;
(2) it compares goods or services meeting the same needs or intended for the same purpose;
(3) it objectively compares one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative features of those goods and services, which may include price;
(4) it does not create confusion in the market place between the advertiser’s trade marks, trade names, other distinguishing marks, goods or services and those of a competitor;
(5) it does not discredit or denigrate the trade marks, trade names, other distinguishing marks, goods, services activities or circumstances of a competitor;
(6) for products with designation of origin, it relates in each case to products with the same designation;
(7) it does not take unfair advantage of the reputation of a trade mark, trade name or other distinguishing marks of a competitor or of the designation of origin of competing products;
(8) it does not present goods or services as imitations or replicas of goods or services bearing a protected trade mark or trade names.”
This list of permitted use is, in comparison, more prescriptive than the provisions laid down in the TMA which simply requires comparative advertising to be in accordance with “honest practices”.
The European Court of Justice (‘ECJ’) considered the issue of comparative advertising in the case of Pippig Augenoptik GmbH & Co KG v Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH [2003] ECR I-3095. The ECJ considered the impact of comparative advertising and the purpose it served, stating that it was important in assisting consumers in making informed choices. Following the approach taken in Toshiba v Katun [2003] ETMR 296, the court concluded that “ … the conditions required of comparative advertising must be interpreted in the sense most favourable to it.”
Comparative advertising and the Trade Marks Act 1994
Section 10(6) of the TMA states:
“Nothing in the preceding provisions of this section shall be construed as preventing the used of a registered trade mark by any person for the purpose of identifying goods or services as those of the proprietor or licensee.
But any such use otherwise than in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters shall be treated as infringing the registered trade mark if the use without due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the trade mark.”
Protection against comparative advertising is provided as long as the registered trade mark is used in relation to the genuine goods or services of the proprietor and that such use accords with honest practice, that is to say is fair and accurate. Where this is not the case, any comparative advertising will be treated as an infringement if it is use which takes advantage of or is detrimental to the distinctive nature or reputation of the registered trade mark.
So how is ‘honesty’ to be judged? The test is an objective one and it is for the trade mark owner to establish on the facts that the advertisement making the comparison was considered dishonest by “members of a reasonable audience” (Barclays Bank plc v RBS Advanta [1996] RPC 307).
In the case of Emaco Ltd and Aktienbolaget Electrolux v Dyson Appliances Ltd [1999] ETMR 903, both manufacturers of vacuum cleaners engaged in advertising campaigns which stated that having undergone independent tests, each product was superior to the other. They then proceeded to sue each other for malicious falsehood and trade mark infringement. The Court dismissed the claims for malicious falsehood but upheld the claims for trade mark infringement upon the basis that the tests conducted were unfair in that they were not done under normal circumstances and both parties had been involved in unfair comparative advertising.
This can be contrasted with the case of British Airways plc v Ryanair Ltd [2001] ETMR 235 where British Airways claimed that Ryanair’s advertisements comparing their prices was misleading as it had stated they were 5 times more expensive. However, the Court dismissed the action stating that even if Ryanair’s advertisement was misleading, it was not materially misleading given that the point they were trying to make, namely that flying with British Airways was a lot more expensive than flying with Ryanair, was still the same. This decision illustrates the permissive approach of the UK courts in dealing with comparative advertising. Although the approach has been criticised, it is in keeping with pro-competition stance the Court has adopted it has had for so many years.
Directive 97/55 has been incorporated into UK law by The Control of Misleading Advertisements (Amendment) Regulations 2000 which inserts a new regulation into the 1998 Regulations. On the face of it, the Directive may appear more restrictive, but the High Court in British Airways plc v Ryanair Ltd held that the Directive does not affect the interpretation of the TMA. However, it is fair to say that the TMA and the Directive are to be read in conjunction with one another and while adhering to “honest practice” under the TMA, an advertisement must also comply with the Directive.
Conclusion
The use of competitors’ trade marks no longer represents a “no-go zone” for businesses competing in the same industry. Provided that the criterion set out in the legislation is adhered to, businesses are able to use other company’s trade marks and trade names to identity the relative merits of their own products and services over those of their competitors.
Zizasoft Releases zsCompare 3.0 Now with three Editions to Satisfy Every User’s Needs
Home
News Center
Blog
Login
Create Account
Front Page
Arts
Business
Education
Environment
Government
Industry
Lifestyle
Sports
Tech
OtherAutomotiveComputerEventsHealthHome and FamilyLegal / LawMediaMiscellaneousOpinion / EditorialPodcastingScienceSociety
RSS
E-mail Newsletters
Put PRWeb on your site
Zizasoft Releases zsCompare 3.0 Now with three Editions to Satisfy Every User’s Needs
Zizasoft LLC, announces the release of zsCompare Version 3.0. ZsCompare 3.0 includes several new enhancements and is now available in three editions to satisfy a broad range of user needs. ZsCompare runs on Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux.
ShareThis
Email
PDF
Print
Denver, CO (PRWEB) May 4, 2006
Zizasoft LLC, creator of software utilities for Windows, Mac, and Linux systems, announces the release of zsCompare Version 3.0. ZsCompare 3.0 includes several new enhancements and is now available in three editions to satisfy a broad range of user needs.
ZsCompare allows users to efficiently synchronize computers, backup data, compare different versions of files, verify that CDs have been copied correctly, manage Zip files, review changes to source code, and more. Users can easily run comparisons on local directories, networked computers, or removable media, such as CDs, DVDs, and flash drives. zsCompare is highly customizable to meet a wide range of needs.
ZsCompare 3.0 adds many new file and freeform text comparison features, including the ability to compare text from Microsoft Word documents and PDF documents. Also, zsCompare provides additional control over how the comparison is performed with predefined options for common comparisons. Finally, the new version of zsCompare permits direct editing of the contents of a file from the results.
New directory comparison features in zsCompare allow users to create and compare Snapshots of the file system and to create and apply Patch files for files and directories. Patch files allow users to store just the differences between two files or directories. This saves space on hard drives and allows users to easily send small files to people at remote locations. Users can also directly modify file names, attributes, and timestamps from the results now.
Also new is the ability to save sets of options for future use. Users can easily change between sets of options from the main comparison screen. Having multiple options sets provides quick access to different types of comparisons and allows users to obtain the best results depending on what is being compared.
ZsCompare 3.0 operates on Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux. It runs on the Java platform, a copy of which is included with the zsCompare installation.
ZsCompare 3.0 is available in three editions: Professional (9.95), Standard (.95), and Lite (.00).
The Lite Edition contains basic comparison and synchronization functionality. With the Lite Edition, users can compare directories, zip files, text files, and freeform text.
The Standard Edition contains all of the features in the Lite Edition plus it adds several additional features to increase productivity. The Standard Edition includes support for creating and comparing snapshots as well as support for changing attributes, timestamps, and file names directly from the results. The Standard Edition also has more powerful text comparison options, and the ability to directly edit the text of a file from the results. With the Standard Edition, users can also view results in a binary mode to compare non-textual files.
The Professional Edition contains all of the features in the Standard Edition plus support for comparing the text of Microsoft Word documents and PDF files. The Professional Edition also lets users create and run scripts to automate the complete functionality of zsCompare.
All versions include free lifetime upgrades and free technical support.
More information, including a complete list of enhancements and a fully functional 30 day trial version, is available at http://www.zizasoft.com/products/zsCompare/index.shtml.
About Zizasoft
Based in Parker, Colorado, Zizasoft creates software utilities which allow business users and software developers to synchronize computers, compare file revisions, backup files, clean up duplicate files, create patches of files, create snapshots of files, and more. Zizasoft’s products are designed to run on Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux.
Contact Information
Zizasoft LLC
21684 Swale Ave.
Parker, CO 80138
Telephone: 1 (303) 638-9235
Fax: 1 (720) 862-2089
###
Share:
Contact
Mark Noble
ZIZASOFT, LLC
303-638-9235
Email
Attachments
zsCompare Case Study – File Comparison Functionality
A case study for zsCompare focusing on using zsCompare to compare and merge files.
ZsCompare Brochure
Product Brochure for zsCompare in pdf format describing key features and benefits.
ZsCompare Product Overview
Product Overview for zsCompare with in depth information for reviewers of zsCompare.
zsCompare Case Study – Directory Comparison Functionality
A case study for zsCompare focusing on directory comparison functionality.
Past News Releases
Subscribe
PRWeb Home
News Center
We’re here to help.
Call 1-866-640-6397
Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook
Why PRWeb
How It Works
Who Uses It
Pricing
Learning
Blog
About Vocus
Contact Us
Partners
Subscribe to News
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy
Copyright
Site Map
Create Account
©Copyright 1997-2009, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Pet Nutrition Info and Poetry Center
Pet nutrition, comparative pet food information and poetry.
Pet Nutrition Info and Poetry Center
(out of 5 reviews)
