|
Factual Background
The Defendant posted a series of campaigns from August 2021 to June 2022 offering the Claimant’s trademarked products for sale on their website. The Defendant’s own brand products were priced lower than the Claimant’s consistently across the website. Whenever a customer chose one of the Claimant’s products, they would be offered the choice of clicking either an "Add to Basket" button or a "Save £[x] per day", "Swap and Save [£]" or "Try something new" button. Clicking the latter would take the customer to a page displaying the Defendant’s products. The Claimant felt this amounted to a breach of the 2008 Regulations and has sued the Defendant for trade mark infringement. What is Comparative Advertising? Comparative advertising is a marketing technique whereby a company’s product/service is presented as being superior to a competitor’s using a comparator. It is defined in The Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008 (the 2008 Regulations) as “advertising which in any way, either explicitly or by implication, identifies a competitor or a product offered by a competitor”. Businesses are prone to risk in this regard as they often use a registered trade mark of a competitor without permission to do so. A business whose advertisement contravenes the rules will be liable for trade mark infringement and possibly other causes of action depending on the circumstances. The 2008 Regulations The 2008 Regulations define ‘Advertising’ in s2(1) as: “any form of representation which is made in connection with a trade, business, craft or profession in order to promote the supply or transfer of a product and “advertiser” shall be construed accordingly”. Decision As a preliminary issue, the Court was asked the following: "What message is conveyed by the comparative advertising complained of?”. The Claimant argued the Defendant’s advertisements implied the products offered were comparable in nature including the efficiency and quality of the products. The Defendant argued that the advertisements only made a comparison as to the pricing of the products and were not presenting as matching the efficiency and quality of the Claimant’s products. James Pickering KC (Deputy High Court Judge) found that the answer to the question as to what message was conveyed by the advertisements was that the average consumer would regard them as statements that the Defendant’s products offered in the alternative were comparable in nature and/or composition and/or specification to the relevant Claimant’s products including, inter alia, the efficacy and quality of those products. There will be a second hearing to decide whether the Defendant’s products are of a lower efficiency/quality in comparison to the Claimants’ products. This article covers trademark infringement in general terms, it cannot serve as a resource to advise you as it will largely depend on the individual circumstances. If you need advice on any of the above issues, please contact Riyaz Jariwalla in the Commercial Litigation team at BPE [email protected]. |
You may also be interested in
Statutory demand prompts full payment of rent arrears and further recovery action
BPE’s Commercial Litigation team has successfully secured full payment of rent arrears for a commercial landlord client, following the service of a statutory demand over the festive period.
Why HR should know about Rockstar and Grand Theft Auto
When people hear the name Rockstar Games, they usually think of the blockbuster franchise Grand Theft Auto (GTA). However, the studio recently found itself in the spotlight for something different: an Employment Tribunal dispute involving 29 developers working on the next instalment of the game, Grand Theft Auto VI.
When should you apply for a Final Order (Decree Absolute) in divorce proceedings?
Divorce involves a number of formal legal stages, and understanding when to apply for a Final Order (previously known as a Decree Absolute) is an important part of the process.
Selling a company to an Employee Ownership Trust – is it still worth it?
BPE Solicitors LLP (BPE) have recently advised a number of clients on selling their companies to an employee ownership trust (EOT). Selling a company to an EOT offers significant tax advantages, including CGT relief for selling shareholders and tax-free bonuses for employees, provided statutory conditions are met.
The Hidden Risk in the Unfair Dismissal Reforms
The Employment Rights Bill received Royal Assent on 16 December 2025, creating the Employment Rights Act 2025 and laying the groundwork for a series of significant employment law reforms due to take effect throughout 2026 and 2027.
EOT vs MBO: Which Ownership Model is Right for Your Business?
For many business owners planning their succession, the question of how to pass on their company is one of the most important – and often the most complex – decisions they will face. Two increasingly popular options are an Employee Ownership Trust (EOT) or a Management Buy-Out (MBO).
Why legal advice remains essential for low-value lease transactions
When considering a lease transaction, whether as a landlord or a tenant, it can be tempting to go without professional legal advice, as you may think that the legal costs could be disproportionate given the low rental value.
Landlord’s leasehold obligations
It’s no real surprise that landlords are responsible for the maintenance and repair of the structure and common parts of the leasehold properties they own. But how far do their specific obligations reach?
