United Kingdom : Chapter 6
| Pages | 39-53 |
| Date | 01 January 2002 |
| Published date | 01 January 2002 |
| DOI | 10.10520/EJC74006 |
| Author | Adelheid Janse van Rensburg |
CHAPTER 6
UNITED KINGDOM
1. Introduction
2. Common law
2.1 Injurious falsehoods
2.2 Passing off
2.3 Defamation
2.4 Criminal law
3. Statutory law
3.1 Trade Marks Act 1994
3.1.1 Section 10(6)
3.1.2 Barclays Bank v RBS Advanta
3.1.3 Vodafone Group plc v Orange Personal Communication Services Ltd.
3.1.4 British Telecommunications plc. v AT & T Communications (UK) Ltd.
3.1.5 Operation of section 10(6)
4. Self-regulatory bodies
4.1 Structure
4.2 British Code of Advertising Practice
4.3 Television and Radio Codes
4.4 Administrative Proceedings
4.5 Advantages and disadvantages of self-regulation
4.6 Self-regulation versus legal regulation
5. Conclusion
1. Introduction
Comparative advertising is not a new practice in the United Kingdom. But
as opposed to the view held in the United States, the British were quite
hostile towards such advertising. They were of the opinion that advertising
should centre around images rather than facts. Their main complaint was
that direct comparative advertising was of a negative nature, as well as
impolite.1
The United Kingdom’s legal regime held this kind of advertising to be an
unfair business practice. This situation prevailed since 1938 (when the
Trade Marks Act was passed) and was reaffirmed in 1974.2
The case that preceded the Trade Marks Act, and subsequently led to its
enactment, is Irving’s Yeastvite Ltd v Horsenail,3where the defendant
used a direct comparative advertisement. He used the phrase “Yeast
39
1 Beller 1995: 928.
2 Walsh 1995: 33. Mathys Committee, see British Trademark Law and Practice,
Cmnd 5601, May 1974, paragraphs 80 to 88. This committee was founded to
review trade mark law. Their conclusion and consequent recommendation was
that the prohibition on comparative advertising must be maintained.
3 (1934) 51 RPC 110.
To continue reading
Request your trial