Comparative advertising in the european union

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 47, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 855-876

  Spink, Paul ^a   Petty, Ross ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

^b BABSON COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 9944258132     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0020589300062564     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. In fact it has been claimed that comparative advertising amounts to almost 50% of all advertising in the US; see B. Schmitz, “Advertising and Commercial Communications– Towards a Coherent and Effective EC Policy” (1993) 16 J.C.P. 387, 403.
2. See also Robert Levy, “Big Resurgence in Comparative Ads” (1987) 129 Dun's Business Month 56–58
3. John C. Rogers and Terrell G. Williams, “Comparative Advertising Effectiveness; Practitioners' Perceptions Versus Academic Research Findings” (1989) 29 J. Advertising Research 22–37.
4. R. D. Petty, “Advertising Law in the United States and European Union” (1997) 16(1) Public Policy and Marketing 2.
5. See Th. Bourgoignie, “Comparative Advertising and the Protection of Consumer Interests in Europe: Reconcile the Irreconcilable?” [1992] E. Consum. LJ. 3,4.
6. Case 120/78 Rewe-Zentral v. Bundcsmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (“Cassis de Dijon”) [1979] E.CR. 649.
7. C-362/88 GB-INNO-BM [1990] E.CR. 667.
8. Joined Cases C-267 and 268/91 Keck and Mithouard [1993] E.C.R. 1–6097.
9. For an interesting discussion of the issue see R. Rijkens and G. E. Miracle, European Regulation of Advertising (1986).
10. Directive 84/450/EEC (1984) OJ. L250/17 (19 Sept.).
11. (1991) OJ.C180/14 (11 June).
12. EC Draft Instrument 6591/94 COM(94)151, 21 Apr. 1994
13. (1994) OJ. C136/4 (19 May).
14. R. D. Petty and P. M. Spink, “Comparative Advertising Law in the European Community: Will the Proposed Directive Harmonize Across the Atlantic?” (1995) 14(2) J. Public Policy and Marketing 310–317.
15. See J. Public Policy and Marketing
16. For comment see G. Howells and T. Wilhelmsson, EC Consumer Law (1997). p.145.
17. See EC Consumer Law
18. This is the most common way to challenge a comparison in the US. See Petty, EC Consumer Law. at p.7.
19. EC Consumer Law See Directive 84/450, Art.6.
20. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. (1994) NAD Case Reports, Nov.
21. [1992] F.S.R. 93.
22. See Ross D. Petty, “The Evolution of Comparative Advertising Law; Has the Lanham Act Gone Too Far?” (1991) 10(2) J. of Public Policy and Marketing 161–175
23. Caryn L. Beck-Dudley and Terrell G. Williams, “Legal and Public Policy Implications for the Future of Comparative Advertising: A Look at U-Hual v. Jartran” (1989) 8 J. Public Policy and Marketing 124–142.
24. Van Den Bergh Foods Co. (1993) NAD Case Reports. July.
25. (1994) US Dist. LEXIS 10944, 94 Civ. 0367 (MGC) (S.D.N.Y. 5 Aug.).
26. 104 P.L. 98 (16 Jan. 1996).
27. (1992) OJ. L208/l(24 July).
28. See OJ.
29. Petty and Spink, OJ., at p 315.
30. By way of example, however, although it may be acceptable to compare apples with oranges, a similar comparison with bananas may be prohibited! In Case 27/76 United Brands v. Commission [1978] E.C.R. 207. having considered detailed studies of the fruit market the ECJ ruled that bananas were not interchangeable with other fruit for the purposes of defining the relevant market in the context of an Art.86 EC investigation into the behaviour of the United Brands Company.
31. Campbell Soup Co. (1991) NAD Case Reports. Oct.
32. Carnation Co. (1970) 77 F.T.C. 1547.
33. See F.T.C.
34. See Rijkens and Miracle, F.T.C. at p.285.
35. See J. Richards “A ‘New and Improved’ View of Puffery” (1990) 11 (2) J. Public Policy and Marketing 35–56.
36. Gillette Co. v. Wilkinson Sword, Inc. (1992), 1992 US Dist. LEXIS 12276,89 Civ. 3586 (KMW) (S.D.N.Y. 18 Aug.). In this case Wilkinson Sword claimed the lubricating strip on its razor was six times smoother than that produced by Gillette. The plaintiff was able to show that consumers wrongly concluded they would receive a noticeably smoother shave by using a Wilkinson Sword razor, and thus succeeded in prohibiting the claim Under the new Directive the relevance of the claim would be under scrutiny at the outset
37. (1934)51 R.P.G 110.
38. Directive 89/104/EEC (1989) O.J. L40/1 (11 Feb.).
39. The Times, 8 Feb. 1996.
40. W. R. Cornish, Intellectual Property (3rd edn, 1996), p.626.
41. The Times, 31 Aug. 1996.
42. Petty, The Times.
43. see e.g. Villa Maria Wines (1984) 4 I.P.R. 65,67.
44. [1986] F.S.R. 45.
45. See e.g. Invicta Plastics (USA) Ltd v. Mego Corp. (1981) 523 F.Supp. 619 (S.D.N.Y.).
46. Conopco Inc. v. May Department Stores Co. (1994) 46 F3d 1556 (Fed. Cir.).
47. See e.g. Chanel, Inc. v. Smith (1976) 528 F.2d 284 (9th Cir.)
48. Sherrell Perfume v. Revlon Inc. (1980) 483 F.Supp. 188 (S.D.N.Y).
49. See In re Kroger (1982) 100 F.T.C. 573.
50. Especially in the context of such a controversial and hard won provision. Implementation of the 1984 Directive on Misleading Advertising also led to disparity between member States. See Ross D. Petty, “European Regulation of Misleading Advertising: A Conceptual Analysis” (1995) 16(4) J. Media Law and Practice 23–26.
51. For comment on this phenomenon see “The Role and Future of the European Court of Justice”, a report of the EC Advisory Board of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, chaired by the Rt Hon. the Lord Slynn of Hadley (1966), p.95.
52. See, inter alia. Joined Cases C-6 and 9–90, Francovich and Bonifaci v. Italy [1991] E.CR. 1–5357
53. Ross, “Beyond Francovich” (1993) 56 M.L.R. 55.
54. See e.g. Case C-333/94P Telra Pak International SA v. Commission (No.2), 14 Nov. 1996, as criticised by V. Koran, “Tetra Pak II–Lack of Reasoning in Court's Judgment” (1997) 2 E.CL.R. 98.
55. However, again it would be prudent to sound a note of caution. Recently, in Case C-333/94P Commission v. United Kingdom [1997] All E.R. (EC) 481, the ECJ was offered the opportunity to rule on whether the so-called “state of the art defence” contained in s.4(l)(e) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 is in conformity with Directive 85/374/EEC on the apportionment of liability for defective products.
56. For some ten years the defence has been criticised as an unduly generous interpretation of the formula adopted by the Directive. The UK provision was condemned as a transparent attempt to attenuate the scheme envisaged by the European Council. The ECJ, however, took a different view, endorsing the UK provision in a surprisingly expansive ruling that will serve to limit the scope of product liability at the point of exploitation of technology thresholds. Significantly perhaps, in the light of the above comments regarding the modus operandi of the ECJ, the judgment handed down was terse and formalistic, confined to a barren extrapolation of basic principle and largely devoid of supportive reasoning. See P. Spink, “The Consumer Protection Act 1987–The State of the Art Defence” (1997) 42(10) J. Law Soc. of Scotland 416–418.
57. Sir Leon Brittan, Vice President of the European Commission, set out the Commission's proposals for a new bilateral trade agreement at Harvard University on 19 Mar. 1998.