Reports of Cases

2008 I-04231

Subject-matter

Interpretation of Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p.1) and Article 3a of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising (OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17) – Use of a competitor’s trade mark in an advertisement for the purposes of comparing the characteristics of the goods or services sold by advertiser with those of the competitor

Systematic classification scheme

Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

• Directive 84/450 : paragraphs 5, 11, 31
• Directive 84/450 -A01 : paragraph 7
• Directive 84/450 -A02PT2BIS : paragraphs 8, 41, 44
• Directive 84/450 -A03BIS : paragraphs 26, 68
• Directive 84/450 -A03BISP1 : paragraphs 9, 27 - 29, 45, 50, 69
• Directive 84/450 -A03BISP1LD : paragraphs 46, 48, 49
• Directive 84/450 -A04 : paragraph 12
• Directive 89/104 : paragraphs 10, 31
• Directive 89/104 -A04P1LB : paragraphs 64, 65
• Directive 89/104 -A05P1 : paragraphs 3, 23, 24, 27, 29, 32 - 34, 36, 37, 45, 51 - 68
• Directive 89/104 -A05P1LA : paragraphs 28, 34, 52, 53
• Directive 89/104 -A05P1LB : paragraphs 25, 28, 46, 47, 49, 50, 54 - 68
• Directive 89/104 -A05P2 : paragraphs 32 - 34, 36, 37, 45
• Directive 89/104 -A05P3LD : paragraph 32
• Directive 89/104 -A06P1 : paragraph 4
• Directive 97/55 : paragraph 5
• Directive 97/55 -C2 : paragraph 38
• Directive 97/55 -C3 : paragraph 38
• Directive 97/55 -C4 : paragraph 38
• Directive 97/55 -C5 : paragraph 38
• Directive 97/55 -C6 : paragraph 38
• Directive 97/55 -C13 : paragraphs 6, 39, 49
• Directive 97/55 -C14 : paragraphs 6, 39, 49
• Directive 97/55 -C15 : paragraphs 6, 35, 39, 49
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -342/97 : paragraph 58
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -425/98 : paragraph 64
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -112/99 : paragraphs 35, 42, 43
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -44/01 : paragraph 42
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -206/01 : paragraphs 55, 56
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -245/02 : paragraph 56
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -120/04 : paragraphs 47, 56, 58
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -48/05 : paragraphs 34, 55, 56
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -381/05 : paragraphs 42, 43
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -17/06 : paragraphs 55, 56, 59

Operative part

• Interprets : Directive 84/450 -A03BISP1
• Interprets : Directive 89/104 -A05P1
• Interprets : Directive 89/104 -A05P1LB
• Interprets : Directive 89/104 -A05P2

Opinion

• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 249 -L3 : point 18
  
• Treaty of Nice 2001 - Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice -A23 : point 15
  
• Directive 84/450 : points 1, 5, 6, 18, 28
  
• Directive 84/450 -A02PT2BIS : points 6, 39
  
• Directive 84/450 -A03BIS : points 6, 14, 17, 30 - 35, 39, 41 - 67
  
• Directive 84/450 -A03BISP01 : points 7, 32
  
• Directive 84/450 -A03BISP01LD : point 32
  
• Directive 84/450 -A03BISP01LE : points 32, 45, 64
  
• Directive 84/450 -A03BISP01LG : points 32, 47 - 51, 55, 58, 64
  
• Directive 84/450 -A03BISP01LH : point 32
  
• Directive 89/104 : points 1, 18
  
• Directive 89/104 -A05 : point 3
  
• Directive 89/104 -A05P01 : points 22, 24, 26, 39
  
• Directive 89/104 -A05P01 : point 65
  
• Directive 89/104 -A05P01LA : points 14, 16 - 28, 35 - 40, 67
  
• Directive 89/104 -A05P01LB : points 12, 14, 16 - 28, 35 - 40, 67
  
• Directive 89/104 -A06 : point 21
  
• Directive 89/104 -A06P01 : points 4, 35
  
• Directive 89/104 -A06P01LB : point 17
  
• Directive 89/104 -A07 : point 21
  
• Regulation 40/94 -A08P05 : point 65
  
• Directive 97/55 : points 1, 5, 6, 29, 35
  
• Directive 97/55 -C2 : points 29, 65
  
• Directive 97/55 -C7 : point 30
  
• Directive 97/55 -C11 : point 31
  
• Directive 97/55 -C14 : points 33, 48, 52
  
• Directive 97/55 -C15 : points 33, 44, 48, 52
  
• Directive 97/55 -C18 : point 29
  
• Directive 2005/29 : point 6
  
• Directive 2006/114 : point 6
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -355/96 : point 18
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -63/97 : points 20, 25 - 26
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -112/99 : points 50, 53, 56 - 59
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -2/00 : points 22, 26
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -44/01 : points 32, 54
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -44/01 : points 30, 32, 44, 55, 59
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -206/01 : points 23, -24
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -408/01 : point 18
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -245/02 : point 23
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -356/04 : point 59
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -48/05 : points 23, 25 - 26, 61
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -59/05 : points 55 - 58
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -381/05 : point 59
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -17/06 : point 23
  

Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

Information not available

Date of the Opinion

• 31/01/2008

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

12/06/2008

References

Publication in the Official Journal

Application: OJ C 56 from 10.03.2007, p.20

Judgment: OJ C 209 from 15.08.2008, p.9

Name of the parties

O2 Holdings ET O2 (UK)

Notes on Academic Writings

1. Fhima, Ilanah Simon: Trade Mark Infringement in Comparative Advertising Situations: O2 v H3G, European Intellectual Property Review 2008 p.420-429 (EN)
2. Idot, Laurence: Relations entre droit des marques et publicité comparative, Europe 2008 Août-Septembre Comm. nº 281 p.33-34 (FR)
3. González Vaqué, Luis: El Tribunal de Justicia de las Comunidades Europeas precisa su jurisprudencia sobre el uso en la publicidad comparativa de un signo idéntico a una marca: la sentencia "O2 Holdings & 02 (UK)", Autocontrol 2008 nº 133 p.17-22 (ES)
4. Blankenburg, Daniel: Neues zur vergleichenden Werbung, zur Verwechslungsgefahr und zur markenmäßigen Benutzung?, Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis 2008 p.1294-1299 (DE)
5. Hoogenraad, Ebba H.: Intellectuele eigendom & Reclamerecht 2008 p.218-220 (NL)
6. Dudzik, Jarosław ; Skubisz, Ryszard: Używanie znaku towarowego konkurenta w reklamie porównawczej - glosa do wyroku ETS z 12.06.2008 r. w sprawie C-533/06 O2 Holdings Limited, Europejski Przegląd Sądowy 2008 Vol. 11 p.36-41 (PL)
7. Namysłowska, Monika: Kolizyjnoprawne aspekty używania znaku towarowego konkurenta w reklamie porównawczej, Przegląd Prawa Handlowego 2008 Vol.10 p.16-20 (PL)
8. Tavella, Massimo: Uso di segno distintivo simile a marchio nella pubblicità comparativa, Il diritto industriale 2008 p.487-491 (IT)
9. Schumacher, Christian: Markenbenutzung in vergleichender Werbung, Ecolex 2008 p.1141-1142 (DE)
10. Gamerith, Helmut: Verwendung einer fremden Marke bei vergleichender Preiswerbung, Österreichische Blätter für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 2008 p.357-358 (DE)
11. Sorreaux, Grégory: Publicité comparative: faut-il encore se soucier du droit des marques?, Revue de droit commercial belge 2009 p.362-368 (FR)
12. A., I.: AIDA - Annali italiani del diritto d'autore, della cultura e dello spettacolo (Ed. Giuffrè-Milano) 2009 p.371-374 (IT)
13. Alexander, Christian: Markenschutz und berechtigte Informationsinteressen bei Werbevergleichen, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 2010 p.482-487 (DE)
14. Straetmans, Gert: Comparative Advertising and Use of Trade Marks: Confusion, Imitation and Unfair Advantage, Landmark cases of EU consumer law: in honour of Jules Stuyck (Ed. Intersentia - Cambridge) 2013 p.377-401 (EN)
15. Gielen, Ch.: Jurisprudentie Intellectuele Eigendom 1953-2014 (Ed. 2015 Ars Aequi Libri, Nijmegen) 2015 p.136-139 (NL)
16. Gielen, Ch.: O2/Hutchinson, Ars aequi 2019 p.352-354 (NL)

Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) - United Kingdom

Subject-matter

• Approximation of laws
  
• System of property ownership
  
• Consumer protection
  

Provisions of national law referred to

Information not available

Provisions of international law referred to

Information not available

Procedure and result

• Reference for a preliminary ruling
  

Formation of the Court

Première chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Ilešič

Advocate General

Mengozzi

Language(s) of the Case

• English
  

Language(s) of the Opinion

• Italian