Admittedly rather confused by the English translation of the Advocate General Mengozzi's recommendation in Case C-487/07 L'Oréal SA, Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC, Laboratoire Garnier & Cie v Bellure NV, Malaika Investments Ltd, trading as "Honey pot cosmetic & Perfumery Sales"), Starion International, this German Kat has had a look at the German version of the Advocate General's opinion and found that it was a trifle easier to understand.
As such, this Kat offers the IPKat's readers the following alternative -- if definitely unofficial --translation of the Advocate General's opinion concerning (3) Article 3a(1)(h) of Directive 84/450 (para 112):
(3) Article 3a(1)(h) of Directive 84/450, as amended ..., must be interpreted as meaning that:
– it prohibits an advertisement/advertising message which alludes, explicitly or by implication, also bearing in mind the economic context in which the advertisement is integrated, to the fact that the advertiser’s product has been manufactured in such a way that it imitates or reproduces a product - even restricted to one or more of its essential characteristics - which is protected by another person’s mark; and,
– as such, it [Article 3a(1)(h)] does not already by itself prohibit an advertisement because it includes the statement/declaration that the advertiser’s product possesses an essential characteristic that is identical with that of a product which is protected by a -- possibly well-known -- trade mark.
- To read the German version of the Advocate General's opinion, please click here.
- The French version can be accessed here, other versions available are in Spanish; Danish; Latvian; Dutch; Portuguese; Finnish and Swedish.
- There does not appear to be an Italian version - even though this is the original language of the opinion. Is the IPKat looking in the wrong place?