Source: https://timeritous.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/english-court-gets-sniffy-about-being-led-by-the-nose/
Timestamp: 2017-06-25 14:02:51
Document Index: 251420987

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ']

English court gets sniffy about being led by the nose | TiMeriTy
Posted on 9 June 2010 by Andrew Sharpe	UK Trade Mark 777757
The recent Court of Appeal case of L’Oréal SA & Ors v. Bellure NV & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 535 is probably the best, recent example of an English court attempting to tweak the nose of the Court of Justice of the European Union (formerly European Court of Justice)(CJEU) that you are likely to find. In its ruling the Court of Appeal acknowledged that it is bound by the European Communities Act 1972 to give effect to judgements of the CJEU and applied the CJEU ruling in Case C-487/07, a referral to the CJEU from the Court of Appeal at an earlier hearing on the case. However, the leading judgement of Jacobs LJ does an excellent job of showing how unfair and perverse the ruling of the CJEU is when applied to the facts of the case. The case involved a small Belgian producer of smell-alike perfumes and its UK distributors, who sold the cheap versions of well-known designer brands to low-end retailers in bottles and packaging that were not identical but were generally similar to the brands’ packaging. However, the defendants advertised the cheap perfumes in comparative lists which indicated by designer brands which perfume the cheap version smelled like.
There are some notable passages in the judgement that show where Jacobs’ sympathies lay: Does trade mark law prevent the defendants from telling the truth? Even though their perfumes are lawful and do smell like the corresponding famous brands, does trade mark law nonetheless muzzle the defendants so that they cannot say so?
If a trader cannot (when it is truly the case) say: “my goods are the same as Brand X (a famous registered mark) but half the price”, I think there is a real danger that important areas of trade will not be open to proper competition.” We have to agree with Jacobs LJ. We would find it extremely difficult to advise a manufacturer or distributor of an imitation or replica product or service on how to advertise its products or services in comparison with a registered trade mark product or service. The CJEU does not make it clear what it means by “unfair advantage” in the relevant provisions, nor what is meant by the CJEU’s opinion that “riding on the coat-tails” of a trademark is prohibited. Is it even possible to cite a registered trademark in a comparative advertisement after the CJEU ruling?
This entry was posted in Commercial, Intellectual Property and tagged Bellure, Case C-487/07, CJEU, commercial law, comparative advertising, Comparative Advertising Directive, Court of Appeal, Jabobs LJ, L'Oreal, L'Oreal v Bellure, smell-alike perfumes, Trade Mark Directive, trade mark law by Andrew Sharpe. Bookmark the permalink.	Leave a Reply Cancel reply	Enter your comment here...