tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post8267262645376040626..comments2024-03-28T08:10:18.991+00:00Comments on The IPKat: BRUT beer ruling: the ECJ says yes, among other thingsVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-48782591588999573302007-04-19T19:27:00.000+01:002007-04-19T19:27:00.000+01:00Certainly. To define the Art.6 honest practices pr...Certainly. To define the Art.6 honest practices proviso in <I>Gillette</I>, the ECJ uses criteria that it lifts from Art.3a(1). At risk of blowing my own trumpet, I deal with this subject in (excrutiating) length in my article which is coming out in the May IPQ. <BR/><BR/>The BRUT case highlights that the comparative advertising directive (and hence Art.3a(1)) applies only to situations involving directish competiors. However, Art.6 is, in theory at least, a defence to ALL types of trade mark infringement, whether the goods are similar or dissimilar (though why this may not be true is also something I rant on about in my IPQ piece). <BR/><BR/>Hence, in Gillette, the ECJ has taken something designed only for competing goods situations and applied it to ALL trade situations.Ilanahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04769375670713505896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-9594420066669539362007-04-19T16:45:00.000+01:002007-04-19T16:45:00.000+01:00I don't think I'm being unfair. What I object to i...I don't think I'm being unfair. What I object to is not so much the decision itself - I welcome its width - as the lack of clarity with which it is expressed and the oracular form of analysis that makes the reader forget that the analysis ever had something to do with a real set of facts that could happen again one day.<BR/><BR/>Not sure I understand the import of your comment on Article 3a(1)/Art.6 TM Directive. Can you clarify?Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01123244020588707776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-22866443949469143652007-04-19T15:24:00.000+01:002007-04-19T15:24:00.000+01:00I think you're being unfair here. This is a pretty...I think you're being unfair here. This is a pretty wide decision which adopts an expansive approach to permissible comparative advertising. However,it's funny that Art.3a(1) applies only in competing goods situations, yet the ECJ appears willing to export it to ALL situations (both competiting and non-competing) when constructing the honest practices proviso of Art.6 of the Trade Marks Directive. <BR/><BR/>Truly horrible triple negative in point 4 of the operative part of the ECJ's judgment.Ilanahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04769375670713505896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-82289874912759840022007-04-19T14:35:00.000+01:002007-04-19T14:35:00.000+01:00Why not use a different marketing strapline: "The...Why not use a different marketing strapline: "The Rolls Royce of beers". Hee Hee.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com