Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
It would be inconsistent with the comparative advertising directive to make all comparative advertising an infringement, so s 10(6) is designed to meet the requirements of that directive. This explains its departure form the wording of the trademarks directive: if it had stuck to the provisions of Article 5(5), it would have had the result of prohibiting all comparative advertising, as in the Benelux, subject only to the interpretation placed by the courts on the words ‘without due cause’. These will probably be taken to require necessity or prior right, and the exception would be extremely narrow. The High Court (Laddie J) considered the meaning of the subsection in Barclays Bank plc v RBS Advanta (1996) Times, 8 February. The following is the author’s note of that case which appeared in (1996) 2 SLR:
DOI link for It would be inconsistent with the comparative advertising directive to make all comparative advertising an infringement, so s 10(6) is designed to meet the requirements of that directive. This explains its departure form the wording of the trademarks directive: if it had stuck to the provisions of Article 5(5), it would have had the result of prohibiting all comparative advertising, as in the Benelux, subject only to the interpretation placed by the courts on the words ‘without due cause’. These will probably be taken to require necessity or prior right, and the exception would be extremely narrow. The High Court (Laddie J) considered the meaning of the subsection in Barclays Bank plc v RBS Advanta (1996) Times, 8 February. The following is the author’s note of that case which appeared in (1996) 2 SLR:
It would be inconsistent with the comparative advertising directive to make all comparative advertising an infringement, so s 10(6) is designed to meet the requirements of that directive. This explains its departure form the wording of the trademarks directive: if it had stuck to the provisions of Article 5(5), it would have had the result of prohibiting all comparative advertising, as in the Benelux, subject only to the interpretation placed by the courts on the words ‘without due cause’. These will probably be taken to require necessity or prior right, and the exception would be extremely narrow. The High Court (Laddie J) considered the meaning of the subsection in Barclays Bank plc v RBS Advanta (1996) Times, 8 February. The following is the author’s note of that case which appeared in (1996) 2 SLR:
ABSTRACT
The defendants circulated marketing literature to promote a new credit card they were launching. It referred to the services offered by a number of their competitors, including Barclaycard. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ card would get an unfair advantage in the marketplace as a result.
