tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post9038219929089994594..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Breaking news: Advocate General opines in L'Oréal v BellureVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-26574595878671459372009-02-11T09:53:00.000+00:002009-02-11T09:53:00.000+00:00So, comparative advertising is unfair if it doesn'...So, comparative advertising is unfair if it doesn't benefit consumers. The consumer is happy when she (or her bloke) learns how to save money or buy something she wouldn't otherwise have been able to afford. She's less amused when her exclusive smell becomes commonplace. But the Court of Appeal has already made up its mind that Bellure's products won't damage the reputation (or sales) of L'Oreal's...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-55814624194742422602009-02-10T15:39:00.000+00:002009-02-10T15:39:00.000+00:00The AG's conclusions on 3a(1)(h) of Directive 84/4...The AG's conclusions on 3a(1)(h) of Directive 84/450 (although at first glance irreconcilable) attempts to draw a distinction between advertising claiming a product has an essential characteristic of another trade marked product (which the AG says is ok) and advertising claiming that a product not only has an essential characteristic but has it as a consequence of a deliberate and sucessful attempt to imitate/reproduce that characteristic - see para 84 of the opinion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com