CELEX: 62001CJ0044
Language: en
Date: 2003-04-08
Title: Judgment of the Court of 8 April 2003. # Pippig Augenoptik GmbH & Co. KG v Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH and Verlassenschaft nach dem verstorbenen Franz Josef Hartlauer. # Reference for a preliminary ruling: Oberster Gerichtshof - Austria. # Approximation of laws - Directives 84/450/EEC and 97/55/EC - Misleading advertising - Conditions for comparative advertising to be lawful. # Case C-44/01.

Case C-44/01 Pippig Augenoptik GmbH & Co. KGvHartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH andVerlassenschaft nach dem verstorbenen Franz Josef Hartlauer(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria))
         
            «(Approximation of laws – Directives 84/450/EEC and 97/55/EC – Misleading advertising – Conditions for comparative advertising to be lawful)»
            
               
                  Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano delivered on 12 September 2002 
                     
               I - 0000 
               
            
                   
               
               
            
               
                  Judgment of the Court, 8 April 2003  
                     
               I - 0000 
               
            
                   
               
               
            
            Summary of the Judgment
         
         
                  1..
                  Approximation of laws – Misleading and comparative advertising – Directive 84/450 – Comparative advertising – Definition – Same rules to be applied to the various elements of comparison  (Council Directive 84/450, Art. 2(2)) 
         
                  2..
                  Approximation of laws – Misleading and comparative advertising – Directive 84/450 – Comparative advertising – Stricter national provisions on misleading advertising – Not applicable to comparative advertising  (Council Directive 84/450, Arts 3a and 7) 
         
                  3..
                  Approximation of laws – Misleading and comparative advertising – Directive 84/450 – Comparative advertising – Indication of a competitor's trade mark – Option open to the advertiser – Limits  (Council Directive 84/450, Art. 3a(1)) 
         
                  4..
                  Approximation of laws – Misleading and comparative advertising – Directive 84/450 – Comparative advertising – Purchase of the products compared through different distribution channels – Whether permissible  (Council Directive 84/450, Art. 3a(1)) 
         
                  5..
                  Approximation of laws – Misleading and comparative advertising – Directive 84/450 – Comparative advertising – Test purchase by the advertiser from a competitor before the commencement of his offer – Whether permissible  (Council Directive 84/450, Art. 3a) 
         
                  6..
                  Approximation of laws – Misleading and comparative advertising – Directive 84/450 – Comparative advertising – Reproduction in the advertising message of the name and logo of a competitor with a picture of its shop front – Whether permissible  (Council Directive 84/450, Art. 3a(1)(e)) 
         
                  7..
                  Approximation of laws – Misleading and comparative advertising – Directive 84/450 – Comparative advertising – Price comparison – No discrediting of a competitor even where attention is drawn to a price difference on a product that is greater than the
                     average difference across products as a whole  
                  (Council Directive 84/450, Art. 3a(1)(e)) 
         
         1.
          The definition of comparative advertising in Article 2(2) of Directive 84/450 on misleading and comparative advertising, as
         amended by Directive 97/55, covers all forms of comparative advertising, so that, in order for there to be comparative advertising,
         it is sufficient for  there to be a statement referring even by implication to a competitor or to the goods or services which
         he offers. Therefore, in the context of Directive 84/450, it is not necessary to establish distinctions in the legislation
         between various elements of comparison, that is to say the statements concerning the advertiser's offer, the statements concerning
         the competitor's offer, and the  relationship between those two offers. see paras 35, 37
         
         2.
          Article 7(2) of Directive 84/450 on misleading and comparative advertising, as amended by Directive 97/55, precludes the application
         to comparative advertising of stricter national provisions on protection against misleading advertising as far as the form
         and content of the comparison is concerned, without there being any need to establish distinctions between the various elements
         of the comparison, that is to say statements concerning the advertiser's offer, statements concerning the competitor's offer
         and the relationship between those offers. That directive carried out an exhaustive harmonisation of the conditions under which comparative advertising in Member States
         might be lawful, so that such lawfulness must be assessed solely in the light of the criteria laid down by the Community legislature.
         see paras 42, 44, operative part 1
         
         3.
          In the context of comparative advertising, where there is compliance with the conditions set out in Article 3a(1) of Directive
         84/450 on misleading and comparative advertising, as amended by Directive 97/55, namely that such advertising does not create
         confusion in the market place between the brand names of the advertiser and those of a competitor, that it does not discredit
         or denigrate the brands of a competitor, and that it does not take unfair advantage of the reputation of a competitor's brand,
         it is open to an advertiser to state the trade mark of a competitor's products. There are, however, cases where the brand
         name, of the products may significantly affect the buyer's choice, and where the comparison concerns rival products whose
         respective brand names differ considerably in the extent to which they are known the omission of the better-known brand name
         goes against Article 3a(1)(a) of Directive 84/450, which lays down one of the conditions for comparative advertising to be
         lawful. It is for the national court to verify in each case, having regard to all the relevant factors of the case which is
         brought before it, whether the conditions for comparative advertising to be lawful are met, taking into account the presumed
         expectations of an average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. see paras 47, 49, 53, 55, operative part 2
         
         4.
          Article 3a(1) of Directive 84/450 on misleading and comparative advertising, as amended by Directive 97/55, does not preclude
         compared products from being purchase through different distribution channels. The conditions set out in that provisions under
         which comparative advertising may be lawful do not include a requirement that the compared products be obtained through the
         same distribution channels. Moreover, such a condition would be contrary both to the objectives of the internal market and
         to those of Directive 84/450. see paras 61-62, operative part 3
         
         5.
          Article 3a(1) of Directive 84/450 on misleading and comparative advertising, as amended by Directive 97/55, does not preclude
         an advertiser from carrying out a test purchase with a competitor before his own offer has even commenced, where the conditions
         for the lawfulness of comparative advertising set out therein are complied with.  It is for the national court to verify whether
         the advertising message complied with those conditions. see paras 70-71, operative part 4
         
         6.
          Article 3a(1)(e) of Directive 84/450 on misleading and comparative advertising, as amended by Directive 97/55, does not prevent
         comparative advertising, in addition to citing the competitor's name, from reproducing its logo and a picture of its shop
         front, if that advertising complies with the conditions for lawfulness laid down by Community law. see paras 83-84, operative part 5
         
         7.
          A price comparison does not entail the discrediting of a competitor, within the meaning of Article 3a(1)(e) of Directive 84/450
         on misleading and comparative advertising, as amended by Directive 97/55, either on the grounds that the difference in price
         between the products compared is greater than the average price difference or by reason of the number of comparisons made.
          see para. 84, operative part 5
      

      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
            
            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT8 April 2003  (1)
         
         
            
         
               ((Approximation of laws – Directives 84/450/EEC and 97/55/EC – Misleading advertising – Conditions for comparative advertising to be lawful))
               
            In Case C-44/01, 
            REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
            pending before that court between 
            
            
            
             Pippig Augenoptik GmbH & Co. KG 
            
            
            and
            
             Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH,  Verlassenschaft nach dem verstorbenen Franz Josef Hartlauer, 
            
            
            on the interpretation of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 on misleading and comparative advertising (OJ 1984
            L 250, p. 17), as amended by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 (OJ 1997 L 290
            p. 18),
            
            THE COURT,,
            
            composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges, 
            
            Advocate General: A. Tizzano, Registrar: M.-F. Contet, Administrator, 
            
            
            after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:
               
               
               ─
               Pippig Augenoptik GmbH & Co. KG, by F. Hitzenbichler, Rechtsanwalt,  
               
               
               ─
               Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH and Verlassenschaft nach dem verstorbenen Franz Josef Hartlauer, by A. Haslinger, H. Mück,
               P. Wagner, W. Müller and W. Graziani-Weis, Rechtsanwälte, 
               
               
               ─
               the Austrian Government, by C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent, 
               
               
               ─
               the Commission of the European Communities, by J. Sack and M. França, acting as Agents, 
               
               
            
            
            having regard to the Report for the Hearing,
            
            after hearing the oral observations of Pippig Augenoptik GmbH & Co. KG, Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH, Verlassenschaft
               nach dem verstorbenen Franz Josef Hartlauer (the Estate of Franz Josef Hartlauer), and the Commission at the hearing on 23
               April 2002,
            
            
            after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 12 September 2002, 
         gives the following
         
         
         Judgment
         1
            
         By order of 19 December 2000, received at the Court on 2 February 2001, the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria)
         referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC four questions on the interpretation of Council Directive
         84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 on misleading and comparative advertising (OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17), as amended by Directive
         97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 (OJ 1997 L 290 p. 18;  
         Directive 84/450). 
         
         
         2
            
         Those questions were raised in proceedings between the Austrian company Pippig Augenoptik GmbH & Co. KG (
         Pippig), the Austrian company Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH (
         Hartlauer) and the estate of Franz Josef Hartlauer, a former director of Hartlauer, concerning advertising by Hartlauer to promote
         the sale of its optical products by comparing them with spectacles sold by Pippig. 
         
            
               Legal background
            Community legislation
         
         
         3
            
         Directive 84/450, which in its initial version concerned only misleading advertising, was amended by Directive 97/55 in order
         to cover comparative advertising as well. The title of Directive 84/450 was therefore amended by Article 1(1) of Directive
         97/55. 
         
         
         4
            
         The seventh recital in the preamble to Directive 84/450 states: Whereas minimum and objective criteria for determining whether advertising is misleading should be established for this purpose.
         
         
         5
            
         Article 1 of Directive 84/450 provides: The purpose of this Directive is to protect consumers, persons carrying on a trade or business or practising a craft or profession
         and the interests of the public in general against misleading advertising and the unfair consequences thereof and to lay down
         the conditions under which comparative advertising is permitted.
         
         
         6
            
         According to Article 2(2) of Directive 84/450,  
         misleading advertising for the purposes of the directive  
         means any advertising which in any way, including its presentation, deceives or is likely to deceive the persons to whom it
         is addressed or whom it reaches and which, by reason of its deceptive nature, is likely to affect their economic behaviour
         or which, for those reasons, injures or is likely to injure a competitor. 
         
         
         7
            
         According to Article 2(2a) of Directive 84/450,  
         comparative advertising means any advertising which explicitly or by implication identifies a competitor or goods or services offered by a competitor.
         
         
         
         8
            
         Article 3a(1) of Directive 84/450 provides: Comparative advertising shall, as far as the comparison is concerned, be permitted when the following conditions are met:
         
         (a)
         it is not misleading according to Articles 2(2), 3 and 7(1); 
         
         
         (b)
         it compares goods or services meeting the same needs or intended for the same purpose; 
         
         
         (c)
         it objectively compares one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative features of those goods and services,
         which may include price; 
         
         
         (d)
         it does not create confusion in the market place between the advertiser and a competitor or between the advertiser's trade
         marks, trade names, other distinguishing marks, goods or services and those of a competitor; 
         
         
         (e)
         it does not discredit or denigrate the trade marks, trade names, other distinguishing marks, goods, services, activities,
         or circumstances of a competitor; 
         
         
         (f)
         for products with designation of origin, it relates in each case to products with the same designation; 
         
         
         (g)
         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; 
         
         
         (h)
         it does not present goods or services as imitations or replicas of goods or services bearing a protected trade mark or trade
         name.
         
         
         
         9
            
         Article 7(1) and (2) of Directive 84/450 provide: 
         
         1.
          This Directive shall not preclude Member States from retaining or adopting provisions with a view to ensuring more extensive
         protection, with regard to misleading advertising, for consumers, persons carrying on a trade, business, craft or profession,
         and the general public.
         
         
         2.
          Paragraph 1 shall not apply to comparative advertising as far as the comparison is concerned.
         
         
         
         10
            
         The 2nd, 3rd, 14th, 15th and 18th recitals in the preamble to Directive 97/55 are worded as follows: 
         
         (2)
         Whereas the completion of the internal market will mean an ever wider range of choice; whereas, given that consumers can and
         must make the best possible use of the internal market, and that advertising is a very important means of creating genuine
         outlets for all goods and services throughout the Community, the basic provisions governing the form and content of comparative
         advertising should be uniform and the conditions of the use of comparative advertising in the Member States should be harmonised;
         whereas if these conditions are met, this will help demonstrate objectively the merits of the various comparable products;
         whereas comparative advertising can also stimulate competition between suppliers of goods and services to the consumer's advantage;
         
         ...
         
         (3)
         ... the acceptance or non-acceptance of comparative advertising according to the various national laws may constitute an obstacle
         to the free movement of goods and services and create distortions of competition ...; 
         ...
         
         (14)
         Whereas ... it may be indispensable, in order to make comparative advertising effective, to identify the goods or services
         of a competitor, making reference to a trade mark or trade name of which the latter is the proprietor; 
         
         
         (15)
         Whereas such use of another's trade mark, trade name or other distinguishing marks does not breach this exclusive right in
         cases where it complies with the conditions laid down by this Directive, the intended target being solely to distinguish between
         them and thus to highlight differences objectively;  
         ...
         
         (18)
         Whereas Article 7 of Directive 84/450/EEC allowing Member States to retain or adopt provisions with a view to ensuring more
         extensive protection for consumers, persons carrying on a trade, business, craft or profession, and the general public, should
         not apply to comparative advertising, given that the objective of amending the said Directive is to establish conditions under
         which comparative advertising is permitted
         . 
         National legislation
         
         
         11
            
         The Republic of Austria transposed Directive 97/55 by amending, with effect from 1 April 2000, the Bundesgesetz gegen den
         unlauteren Wettbewerb (Federal Law Against Unfair Competition) of 16 November 1984 (BGBl. 1984/448;  
          the UWG).  The order for reference shows, however, that Austrian case-law took account of that directive even before the expiry of
         the transposition period when interpreting Article 2 of the UWG. 
         
         
         12
            
         According to Paragraph 2(1) of the UWG: Proceedings for an injunction may be brought against anyone who, for competition purposes, in the course of business, makes
         statements regarding business relations which are liable to mislead. ...
         The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred
         
         13
            
         Pippig operates three specialist opticians' shops in Linz (Austria), in which it markets spectacles.  It obtains its supplies
         from around 60 different manufacturers and has a representative assortment of the collection of each of its suppliers. 
         
         
         14
            
         Hartlauer is a commercial company whose branches, spread throughout the whole of Austria, have optical shelves where the spectacles
         sold are, in the great majority of cases, of little-known brands and sold at low prices.  As far as spectacles of better-known
         brands are concerned, Hartlauer is not supplied directly by the same suppliers as opticians, but obtains them outside normal
         distribution channels, particularly by parallel imports. 
         
         
         15
            
         At the beginning of September 1997, Hartlauer circulated throughout the whole of Austria an advertising leaflet stating that
         52 price comparisons for spectacles carried out over six years had shown a total price differential of ATS 204 777, or ATS
         3 900 on average per pair of spectacles, between the prices charged by Hartlauer and those of traditional opticians.  The
         leaflet claimed in particular that, for a clear Zeiss lens, opticians made a profit of 717%. 
         
         
         16
            
         The advertising leaflet also contained a direct comparison between the price of ATS 5 785 charged by Pippig for Titanflex
         Eschenbach spectacles with Zeiss lenses and the price of ATS 2 000 charged by Hartlauer for spectacles of the same model but
         with lenses of the Optimed brand. 
         
         
         17
            
         That price comparison was also announced in advertisements on various Austrian radio and television channels, in which, by
         contrast with the advertising leaflet, it was not stated that the spectacles compared had lenses of different brands.  The
         television advertisements showed the shop front of the applicant in the main proceedings, with the sign  
         Pippig. 
         
         
         18
            
         The preparation of that comparative advertising included the carrying out of a test purchase.  An employee of Hartlauer went
         to a Pippig shop on 8 July 1997 and ordered Titanflex Eschenbach spectacles and Zeiss lenses.  Those spectacles were then
         photographed and the photograph was used twice in the advertising leaflet distributed by Hartlauer, once to illustrate Pippig's
         offer for those spectacles and once to illustrate Hartlauer's offer for spectacles of the same model with Optimed lenses,
         since, at the date of the test purchase, Titanflex Eschenbach frames were not yet sold in Hartlauer's shops. 
         
         
         19
            
         Pippig brought legal proceedings against Hartlauer and the successors of Franz Josef Hartlauer, demanding that Hartlauer refrain
         from all comparative advertising on price in the form described in paragraphs 15 to 18 of this judgment, on the grounds that
         such advertising was misleading and discrediting.  It also sought damages against the defendants and the publication of the
         judgment at their expense. 
         
         
         20
            
         The first instance and appeal courts having accepted most, but not all, of Pippig's claims, the applicant and the defendants
         both brought an appeal for  
         Revision  before the Oberster Gerichtshof. 
         
         
         21
            
         Taking the view that interpretation of Directive 84/450 was necessary in order to resolve the dispute before it, the Oberster
         Gerichtshof decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
         
         
         (1)
         Is Article 7(2) of Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 amending Directive 84/450/EEC
         concerning misleading advertising so as to include comparative advertising (
         the directive) to be interpreted to the effect that “comparative advertising, as far as the comparison is concerned” means the statements
         regarding the product offered by the advertiser himself, the statements regarding the product offered by the competitor and
         the statements regarding the relationship between the two products (the result of the comparison)? Or is there a “comparison”
         within the meaning of Article 7(2) of the directive only in so far as the statements are made regarding the result of the
         comparison, with the consequence that misconceptions regarding other features of the compared goods/services may be assessed
         on the basis of a national standard governing misleading statements which is possibly more strict? Is the reference in Article 3a(1)(a) of the directive to Article 7(1) of the directive a  
          lex specialis  in relation to Article 7(2) of the directive, with the result that a national standard governing misleading statements which
         is possibly more strict may be applied to all elements of the comparison? Is Article 3a(1)(a) of the directive to be interpreted as meaning that the comparison of the price of a brand-name product
         with the price of a no-name product of equivalent quality is not permitted where the name of the manufacturer is not indicated,
         or do Article 3a(1)(c) and Article 3a(1)(g) of the directive preclude indication of the manufacturer? Is the image of a (brand-name)
         product a feature of the product/service within the meaning of Article 3a(c) of the directive? Does it follow from a (possible)
         negative answer to this question that any (price) comparison of a brand-name product with a no-name product of equivalent
         quality is not permitted? 
         
         
         (2)
         Is Article 7(2) of the directive to be interpreted as meaning that differences in the procurement of the product/service whose
         features are compared with features of the advertiser’s product/service must also be assessed solely on the basis of Article
         3a of the directive? If this question is answered in the affirmative: Is Article 3a of the directive to be interpreted as meaning that a (price) comparison is permitted only if the compared goods
         are procured through the same distribution channels and are thus offered by the advertiser and his competitor(s) in a comparable
         selection? 
         
         
         (3)
         
         
         Is
            
         comparison within the meaning of Article 7(2) of the directive to be construed as including the creation of the bases for comparison
         through a test purchase? If this question is answered in the affirmative: Is Article 3a of the directive to be interpreted as meaning that the deliberate initiation of a (price) comparison which is
         favourable to the advertiser through a test purchase which is made before the beginning of the advertiser's own offer and
         is arranged accordingly makes the comparison unlawful? 
         
         
         
         (4)
         Is a comparison discrediting within the meaning of Article 3a(1)(e) of the directive if the advertiser selects the goods purchased
         from the competitor in such a way that a price difference is obtained which is greater than the average price difference and/or
         if such price comparisons are repeatedly made with the result that the impression is created that the prices of the competitor(s)
         are generally excessive? Is Article 3a(1)(e) of the directive to be interpreted as meaning that the information on the identification of the competitor
         must be restricted to the extent absolutely necessary and it is therefore not permitted if, in addition to the competitor's
         name, its company logo (if it exists) and its shop are shown?
         
         The first question
         
         22
            
         In its first question, the referring court asks, first, whether Article 7(2) of Directive 84/450 applies to all elements of
         the comparison, namely statements regarding the product offered by the advertiser, statements regarding the product offered
         by the competitor, and statements regarding the relationship between the two products, or whether it applies only to that
         latter element.  Second, it asks whether Article 3a(1)(a) of Directive 84/450 must be interpreted as allowing stricter, national,
         provisions on protection against misleading advertising to be applied to comparative advertising.  Third, it asks whether
         Article 3a(1)(a) of Directive 84/450 should be interpreted as authorising the comparison of branded products with unbranded
         ones, where the names of the manufacturers are not indicated. 
         Submissions to the Court
         
         
         23
            
         Pippig argues that Article 3a(1)(a) of Directive 84/450 is a crucial provision, in that it provides that comparative advertising
         may not be misleading within the meaning of Articles 2(2), 3, and 7(1) of that directive.  It submits that Article 3a(1)(a)
         refers not to Article 7(2) but to Article 7(1), with the result that, as far as misleading comparative advertising is concerned,
         it is legitimate to apply stricter national criteria to all elements of the comparison. 
         
         
         24
            
         According to Pippig, for Article 7(2) of Directive 84/450 not to be deprived of all useful effect, that provision must be
         interpreted in such a way that, apart from cases of misleading advertising, the comparison cannot in itself be restricted.
         
         
         
         25
            
         Pippig maintains that, on a proper interpretation of Article 3a(1)(a) of Directive 84/450, comparison between the price of
         a brand-name product and the price of a product of similar quality without a brand name is unlawful where the name of the
         manufacturer of the brand-name product is not indicated.  That, Pippig submits, follows from the requirement for an objective
         comparison stated in the 7th and 15th recitals in the preamble to Directive 97/55. 
         
         
         26
            
         The defendants in the main proceedings argue that Article 7(2) of Directive 84/450 established a  
         fixed standard, expressly excluding the application by Member States of stricter national criteria on deception in relation to all the elements
         of comparative advertising.  A contrary interpretation would lead to an advertising campaign containing comparative advertising,
         designed to be carried out in all Member States, being capable of authorisation in some States and prohibited in others. 
         
         
         27
            
         The defendants further argue that, since Optimed lenses, like Zeiss lenses, are brand-name products, the comparative advertising
         at issue in the main proceedings is lawful.  A different interpretation would lead to comparative advertising being possible
         only between identical products, which would have no sense in the light of Article 3a(1)(b), (d), (e), (g) and (h) of Directive
         84/450. 
         
         
         28
            
         Moreover, statement of the name of the competitor envisaged by the comparison is not obligatory; the optional nature of such
         a designation is apparent both from Article 3a of Directive 84/450 and the 15th recital in the preamble to Directive 97/55.
         
         
         
         29
            
         The Austrian Government maintains that a stricter national criterion for deception should be accepted as lawful in place of
         the risk of deception referred to in Article 3a(1)(a) of Directive 84/450, but not in place of the definition of comparative
         advertising or the conditions set out in Article 3a(1)(b) to (h) of that directive.  A contrary interpretation would leave
         Article 3a(1)(a) of Directive 84/450 devoid of meaning.  It is also difficult to explain why misleading advertising might,
         at the national level, be treated more strictly outside a comparison than in the context of a comparison. 
         
         
         30
            
         The Austrian Government argues that, even if comparison of an unbranded product with a branded one often leads to a situation
         of deception or discredit, such a comparison should not automatically be regarded as unlawful. 
         
         
         31
            
         In the Commission's view, Directive 84/450 contains exhaustive legislation covering all aspects of a comparison of goods or
         services for advertising purposes.  It therefore leaves no room for stricter national legislation or case-law as to the lawfulness
         of such advertising. 
         
         
         32
            
         In those circumstances, the reference to Article 7(1) appearing in Article 3a(1)(a) of Directive 84/450 can only mean that
         comparative advertising, which as such is lawful in accordance with the provisions of that directive, would however be unlawful
         if, in an area other than comparison proper, it were to contain misleading information. 
         
         
         33
            
         The Commission also notes that there is nothing in Directive 84/450 to prohibit comparison of branded products with unbranded
         ones.  In the case of spectacles, however, the fact that they have lenses of a famous brand might be a characteristic increasing
         their quality and thus their price, so that the presence or absence of such lenses in the spectacles being compared for price
         should be mentioned in order to prevent the advertising from being misleading. 
         Findings of the Court
         
         
         34
            
         In relation to the first part of the question, concerning the application of Article 7(2) of Directive 84/450 to all the elements
         of comparison, the Court notes that, according to Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 84/450, comparative advertising means any advertising
         which explicitly or by implication identifies a competitor or goods or services offered by a competitor. 
         
         
         35
            
         As the Court has already held, that is a broad definition covering all forms of comparative advertising, so that, in order
         for there to be comparative advertising, it is sufficient for there to be a statement referring even by implication to a competitor
         or to the goods or services which he offers (Case C-112/99  
          Toshiba Europe  [2001] ECR I-7945, paragraphs 30 and 31). 
         
         
         36
            
         All comparative advertising is designed to highlight the advantages of the goods or services offered by the advertiser in
         comparison with those of a competitor.  In order to achieve that, the message must necessarily underline the differences between
         the goods or services compared by describing their main characteristics.  The comparison made by the advertiser will necessarily
         flow from such a description. 
         
         
         37
            
         Therefore, in the context of Directive 84/450, it is not necessary to establish distinctions in the legislation between the
         various elements of comparison, that is to say the statements concerning the advertiser's offer, the statements concerning
         the competitor's offer, and the relationship between those two offers. 
         
         
         38
            
         As for the second part of the question, concerning the application to comparative advertising of stricter national provisions
         on protection against misleading advertising, the Court takes the view that the objective of Directive 84/450 is the establishment
         of conditions in which comparative advertising must be regarded as lawful in the context of the internal market. 
         
         
         39
            
         To that end, Article 3a of Directive 84/450 enumerates the conditions to be satisfied, including the requirement that comparative
         advertising must not be misleading within the meaning of Articles 2(2), 3 and 7(1) of the directive (see Article 3a(1)(a)
         of Directive 84/450).  
         
         
         40
            
         The Community legislature having carried out only a minimal harmonisation of national rules on misleading advertising, Article
         7(1) of Directive 84/450 allows Member States to apply stricter national provisions in that area, to ensure greater protection
         of consumers in particular. 
         
         
         41
            
         However, Article 7(2) of Directive 84/450 expressly provides that Article 7(1) does not apply to comparative advertising so
         far as the comparison is concerned. 
         
         
         42
            
         Thus, the provisions of Directive 84/450 on the conditions for comparative advertising to be lawful on the one hand refer
         to Article 7(1), as regards the definition of misleading advertising (Article 3a(1)(a)) and, on the other hand, exclude the
         application of that same provision (Article 7(2)).  Faced with that apparent textual contradiction, those provisions must
         be interpreted in such a way as to take account of the objectives of Directive 84/450 and in the light of the case-law of
         the Court according to which the conditions required of comparative advertising must be interpreted in the sense most favourable
         to it (
          Toshiba Europe , paragraph 37). 
         
         
         43
            
         According to the second recital in the preamble to Directive 97/55, the basic provisions governing the form and content of
         comparative advertising should be uniform and the conditions of the use of comparative advertising in the Member States should
         be harmonised.  According to the third recital, the acceptance or non-acceptance of comparative advertising according to the
         various national laws may constitute an obstacle to the free movement of goods and services and create distortions of competition.
          The 18th recital excludes stricter national provisions on misleading advertising being applied to comparative advertising,
         given that the aim of the Community legislature in adopting Directive 97/55 was to establish conditions under which comparative
         advertising is to be permitted throughout the Community.  
         
         
         44
            
         It follows that Directive 84/450 carried out an exhaustive harmonisation of the conditions under which comparative advertising
         in Member States might be lawful.  Such a harmonisation implies by its nature that the lawfulness of comparative advertising
         throughout the Community is to be assessed solely in the light of the criteria laid down by the Community legislature.  Therefore,
         stricter national provisions on protection against misleading advertising cannot be applied to comparative advertising as
         regards the form and content of the comparison. 
         
         
         45
            
         As for the third part of the question, concerning the lawfulness of comparing branded products with unbranded ones, the Court
         notes that, in the main proceedings, the products in question are all branded products. 
         
         
         46
            
         In those circumstances, the question raised should be understood as concerning the lawfulness of the comparison between products
         of different brands where the names of the manufacturers are not identical. 
         
         
         47
            
         In that respect, it should be noted at the outset that, under certain conditions, Directive 84/450 allows an advertiser to
         state in comparative advertising the brand of a competitor's product. 
         
         
         48
            
         That is apparent, first, from the 14th recital in the preamble to Directive 97/55, according to which it may be indispensable,
         in order to make comparative advertising effective, to identify the goods or services of a competitor, making reference to
         a trade mark or trade name of which the latter is the proprietor. 
         
         
         49
            
         That is also the result of Article 3a(1)(d), (e) and (g) of Directive 84/450.  Those provisions set out three conditions for
         comparative advertising to be lawful, requiring, respectively, that it does not create confusion in the market place between
         the brand names of the advertiser and those of a competitor, that it does not discredit or denigrate the brands of a competitor,
         and that it does not take unfair advantage of the reputation of a competitor's brand.  It follows that, where the comparison
         does not have the intention or effect of giving rise to such situations of unfair competition, the use of a competitor's brand
         name is permitted by Community law.  
         
         
         50
            
         Moreover, the Court has already held that the use of another person's trade mark may be legitimate where it is necessary to
         inform the public of the nature of the products or the intended purpose of the services offered (
          Toshiba Europe , paragraph 34). 
         
         
         51
            
         In the context of comparative advertising, therefore, it is open to an advertiser to state the trade mark of a competitor.
         
         
         
         52
            
         It is possible that, in particular circumstances, the omission of such a statement in an advertising message involving a comparison
         might mislead, or at least be capable of misleading, the persons to whom it is addressed, thereby making it misleading within
         the meaning of Article 2(2) of Directive 84/450. 
         
         
         53
            
         In cases where the brand name of the products may significantly affect the buyer's choice and the comparison concerns rival
         products whose respective brand names differ considerably in the extent to which they are known, omission of the better-known
         brand name goes against Article 3a(1)(a) of Directive 84/450, which lays down one of the conditions for comparative advertising
         to be lawful. 
         
         
         54
            
         Given the cumulative nature of the requirements set out in Article 3a(1) of Directive 84/450, such comparative advertising
         is prohibited by Community law. 
         
         
         55
            
         It is, however, for the national court to verify in each case, having regard to all the relevant factors of the case which
         is brought before it, whether the conditions set out in paragraph 53 of this judgment are met, taking into account the presumed
         expectations of an average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect (Case C-220/98
          
          Estee Lauder  [2000] ECR I-117, paragraphs 27 and 30). 
         
         
         56
            
         The answer to the first question must therefore be that: 
         
         
         ─
            Article 7(2) of Directive 84/450 precludes the application to comparative advertising of stricter national provisions on protection
            against misleading advertising as far as the form and content of the comparison is concerned, without there being any need
            to establish distinctions between the various elements of the comparison, that is to say statements concerning the advertiser's
            offer, statements concerning the competitor's offer and the relationship between those offers; 
         
         
         
         ─
            Article 3a(1)(a) of Directive 84/450 must be interpreted as meaning that, whereas the advertiser is in principle free to state
            or not to state the brand name of rival products in comparative advertising, it is for the national court to verify whether,
            in particular circumstances, characterised by the importance of the brand in the buyer's choice and by a major difference
            between the respective brand names of the compared products in terms of how well known they are, omission of the better-known
            brand name is capable of being misleading. 
         
         
         The second question
         
         57
            
         In its second question, the referring court asks essentially whether differences in the method of obtaining supplies of the
         products whose qualities are compared may have an impact on the lawfulness of the comparative advertising. 
         Observations submitted to the Court
         
         
         58
            
         Pippig argues that, where differences in the method of acquiring goods or services are decisive for advertising, and the provenance
         of the product may be important for the consumer and thus for the calculation of the price, those differences must also be
         assessed in the light of Article 3a of Directive 84/450.  Such an interpretation is, it submits, in accordance with the objective
         of Directive 84/450, given that Article 3a(1)(a) of the latter expressly refers to the provisions of Articles 3 and 7(1) of
         the directive.  Article 3(a) of Directive 84/450 provides that the statement in advertising of the commercial origin of goods
         or services constitutes a decisive element in assessing whether it is misleading. 
         
         
         59
            
         According to the defendants in the main proceedings, differences in the means of procuring a product do not in any way change
         its characteristics; spectacles of a given brand remain the same branded product, whether acquired from an official distributor
         or through parallel imports.  Comparative advertising concerning products of the same brand can, moreover, take place only
         between a parallel importer and an official distributor, since official distributors habitually comply with the sale prices
         recommended by manufacturers, thereby eliminating competition on price. 
         
         
         60
            
         The Austrian Government maintains that Article 3a of Directive 84/450 does not preclude comparison between products which
         the advertiser and its competitors obtain through different distribution channels.  The Commission also supports that interpretation
         where there are no particular circumstances to the contrary, such as, for example, an intention by the consumer to make regular
         purchases of a product. 
         Findings of the Court
         
         
         61
            
         As has been pointed out in paragraph 44 of this judgment, Directive 84/450 carried out an exhaustive harmonisation of the
         conditions under which comparative advertising may be lawful in Member States.  Those conditions, which are set out in Article
         3a(1) of that directive, do not include a requirement that the compared products be obtained through the same distribution
         channels. 
         
         
         62
            
         Moreover, such a condition would be contrary both to the objectives of the internal market and to those of Directive 84/450.
         
         
         
         63
            
         In the first place, in completing the internal market as an area without internal frontiers in which free competition is to
         be ensured, parallel imports play an important role in preventing the compartmentalisation of national markets. 
         
         
         64
            
         Secondly, it is clear from the second recital in the preamble to Directive 97/55 that comparative advertising is designed
         to enable consumers to make the best possible use of the internal market, given that advertising is a very important means
         of creating genuine outlets for all goods and services throughout the Community. 
         
         
         65
            
         The answer to the second question must therefore be that Article 3a(1) of Directive 84/450 does not preclude compared products
         from being bought through different distribution channels. 
         The third question
         
         66
            
         In its third question, the referring court essentially asks whether Article 3a of Directive 84/450 precludes an advertiser
         from carrying out a test purchase with a competitor before even commencing his own offer. 
         Observations submitted to the Court
         
         
         67
            
         Pippig argues that Article 3a(1)(a) of Directive 84/450 expressly refers to the conditions for the lawfulness of comparative
         advertising set out in Article 3 of the same directive.  That latter provision states that  
         the results and material features of tests or checks carried out on the goods or services may determine whether advertising is misleading.  Therefore, Pippig argues, an advertiser deliberately provoking a price
         comparison favourable to itself by carrying out a test purchase to that end even before the beginning of its own offer makes
         the comparison unlawful. 
         
         
         68
            
         Against that, the defendants in the main proceedings and the Commission consider that Article 3a of Directive 84/450 does
         not require that, at the date of a test purchase from a rival, the advertiser must already be offering for sale the product
         that will subsequently be compared with the one involved in the test purchase.  In the submission of the defendants in the
         main proceedings, it is inevitable for the test purchase to precede the advertising and thus to happen before the period in
         which the advertiser itself offers the compared product at a lower price. 
         
         
         69
            
         The Austrian Government points out that the conditions for a price comparison to be lawful are exhaustively laid down in Article
         3a of Directive 84/450.  It is therefore for the national court to determine whether the deliberate provoking of a price comparison
         favourable to the advertiser, by carrying out a test purchase even before its own offer begins, may constitute misleading
         advertising. 
         Findings of the Court
         
         
         70
            
         Since a test purchase carried out by an advertiser with a competitor is not in itself prohibited by Directive 84/450, the
         advertising message comparing that advertiser's offer with the competitor's will be unlawful only if it fails to comply with
         one of the conditions laid down in Article 3a(1) of that directive, which it is for the national court to verify. 
         
         
         71
            
         The answer to the third question must therefore be that Article 3a of Directive 84/450 does not preclude an advertiser from
         carrying out a test purchase with a competitor before his own offer has even commenced, where the conditions for the lawfulness
         of comparative advertising set out therein are complied with. 
         The fourth question
         
         72
            
         By its fourth question, the national court first asks whether a price comparison entails discrediting the competitor and is
         therefore unlawful for the purposes of Article 3a(1)(e) of Directive 84/450 when the products are chosen in such a way as
         to obtain a price difference greater than the average price difference and/or the comparisons are repeated continuously, creating
         the impression that the competitor's prices are excessive.  Secondly, it asks whether, on a proper interpretation of that
         provision, comparative advertising is unlawful where, in addition to citing the name of the competitor, it reproduces the
         competitor's logo and a picture of its shop. 
         Observations submitted to the Court
         
         
         73
            
         Pippig argues that a comparison entails discredit, within the meaning of Article 3a(1)(e) of Directive 84/450, where the advertiser
         chooses the goods purchased from the competitor in such a way as to obtain a greater price difference than normal and where
         it makes such price comparisons incessantly so as to give the impression that the competitor's prices are generally excessive.
          The requirement of objectivity implies that the advertiser has no right to give such an impression. 
         
         
         74
            
         It follows from the 15th recital in the preamble to Directive 97/55 that use of the trade mark, trade name or logo of a firm,
         or a picture of a competitor's shop front, does not breach the exclusive right of the owner in cases where such use complies
         with the conditions laid down by Directive 84/450, the aim being solely to make a distinction with the products and services
         of a competitor and thus to highlight differences objectively.  In the case concerned in the main proceedings, however, Pippig
         considers that it was not indispensable for the advertiser to appear  
         triumphantly before the shop of the competitor whose products were being compared. 
         
         
         75
            
         The defendants argue that Article 3a of Directive 84/450 does not require comparative advertising to be reduced to indicating
         any average price difference between the offers of the undertakings being compared.  There is no restriction on the number
         of price comparisons that may validly be made.  If such a requirement, which does not appear in Article 3a, were to be introduced,
         price comparisons concerning certain products, between undertakings charging the same prices on average, would be excluded.
         
         
         
         76
            
         Reference in advertising to a competitor's commercial premises or shop addresses constitutes a valid means of identifying
         the competitor, accepted by the 14th recital in the preamble to Directive 97/55. 
         
         
         77
            
         The Austrian Government considers that it is for the national court to determine, on the basis of the criteria in Article
         3a(1) of Directive 84/450 and particularly in conjunction with Article 2(2) thereof, whether comparative advertising on price
         entails the discredit of a competitor and whether it is unlawful to show the competitor's logo and shop in addition to citing
         its name. 
         
         
         78
            
         The Commission considers that stating higher prices charged by a competitor cannot in itself constitute a discrediting or
         denigration of that competitor.  Therefore, in order to determine whether a price comparison is objective and not misleading,
         it is sufficient to apply Article 3a(1)(a) to (c) of Directive 84/450.  The Commission argues that, since no price level is
         prescribed, the statement that a competitor consistently charges  
         excessive prices cannot, in principle, constitute a discrediting or denigration, unless it is suggested that usurious prices are being
         charged. 
         
         
         79
            
         Finally, the Commission observes that merely showing the logo and shop of a competitor does not constitute a discrediting
         or denigration either, if it is not accompanied by a false or defamatory allegation.  Such reproduction might increase the
         effectiveness and credibility of a comparative advertising campaign. 
         Findings of the Court
         
         
         80
            
         Concerning the first part of the question, the Court takes the view that comparing rival offers, particularly as regards price,
         is of the very nature of comparative advertising.  Therefore, comparing prices cannot in itself entail the discrediting or
         denigration of a competitor who charges higher prices, within the meaning of Article 3a(1)(e) of Directive 84/450. 
         
         
         81
            
         The choice as to the number of comparisons which the advertiser wishes to make between the products which he is offering and
         those offered by his competitors falls within the exercise of his economic freedom.  Any obligation to restrict each price
         comparison to the average prices of the products offered by the advertiser and those of rival products would be contrary to
         the objectives of the Community legislature. 
         
         
         82
            
         In the words of the second recital in the preamble to Directive 97/55, comparative advertising must help demonstrate objectively
         the merits of the various comparable products.  Such objectivity implies that the persons to whom the advertising is addressed
         are capable of knowing the actual price differences between the products compared and not merely the average difference between
         the advertiser's prices and those of its competitors. 
         
         
         83
            
         As for the second part of the question, concerning the reproduction in the advertising message of the competitor's logo and
         a picture of its shop front, it is important to note that, according to the 15th recital in the preamble to Directive 97/55,
         use of another's trade mark, trade name or other distinguishing marks does not breach that exclusive right in cases where
         it complies with the conditions laid down by the directive. 
         
         
         84
            
         Having regard to the above considerations, the answer to the fourth question must be, first, that a price comparison does
         not entail the discrediting of a competitor, within the meaning of Article 3a(1)(e) of Directive 84/450 either on the grounds
         that the difference in price between the products compared is greater than the average price difference or by reason of the
         number of comparisons made.  Secondly, Article 3a(1)(e) of Directive 84/450 does not prevent comparative advertising, in addition
         to citing the competitor's name, from reproducing its logo and a picture of its shop front, if that advertising complies with
         the conditions for lawfulness laid down by Community law. 
         
         Costs
         85
            
         The costs incurred by the Austrian Government and by the Commission, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not
         recoverable. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the proceedings pending before
         the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. 
         
         On those grounds, 
         
         
         
            
            THE COURT,
         
         
         in answer to the questions referred to it by the Oberster Gerichtshof by order of 19 December 2000, hereby rules: 
         
            
            1.
             Article 7(2) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 on misleading and comparative advertising, as amended by
            Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997, precludes the application to comparative
            advertising of stricter national provisions on protection against misleading advertising as far as the form and content of
            the comparison is concerned, without there being any need to establish distinctions between the various elements of the comparison,
            that is to say statements concerning the advertiser's offer, statements concerning the competitor's offer and the relationship
            between those offers. 
            
            
            2.
             Article 3a(1)(a) of Directive 84/450, as amended, must be interpreted as meaning that, whereas the advertiser is in principle
            free to state or not to state the brand name of rival products in comparative advertising, it is for the national court to
            verify whether, in particular circumstances, characterised by the importance of the brand in the buyer's choice and by a major
            difference between the respective brand names of the compared products in terms of how well known they are, omission of the
            better-known brand name is capable of being misleading. 
            
            
            3.
             Article 3a(1) of Directive 84/450, as amended, does not preclude compared products from being purchased through different
            distribution channels.  
            
            
            4.
             Article 3a(1) of Directive 84/450, as amended, does not preclude an advertiser from carrying out a test purchase with a competitor
            before his own offer has even commenced, where the conditions for the lawfulness of comparative advertising set out therein
            are complied with. 
            
            
            5.
             A price comparison does not entail the discrediting of a competitor, within the meaning of Article 3a(1)(e) of Directive 84/450,
            as amended, either on the grounds that the difference in price between the products compared is greater than the average price
            difference or by reason of the number of comparisons made.  Article 3a(1)(e) of Directive 84/450, as amended, does not prevent
            comparative advertising, in addition to citing the competitor's name, from reproducing its logo and a picture of its shop
            front, if that advertising complies with the conditions for lawfulness laid down by Community law. 
            
            
                  Rodríguez Iglesias
               
               
                  Puissochet
               
               
                  Wathelet 
               
            
                  Timmermans 
               
               
                  Edward
               
               
                  Skouris
               
            
                  Macken 
               
               
                  Colneric 
               
               
                  von Bahr
               
            
                  Cunha Rodrigues 
               
               
                  Rosas 
               
               
                  
               
            
                  
               
               
                  
               
               
                  
               
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
         
         
         Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 8 April 2003. 
         
         
         
         
                  R. Grass 
               
               
                  G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias  
               
            
         
         
         
                  Registrar
               
               
                  President
               
            
      
      
          1 –
            
             Language of the case: German.