header-logo header-logo

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

ECJ: comparative ads can use rival trade marks

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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll