A1c
17-11-2004, 09:02 PM
From Mobile Today (17/11/2004)
O2 has failed to stop 3 running comparative advertising on their prepay tariffs.
In an interlocutory hearing at the High Court last week, O2’s application for an injunction against 3’s ads failed on two counts: that the adverts were misleading in their comparisons and that they infringed O2’s intellectual property.
O2 claimed that 3 made unfair comparisons between their prepay tariffs and was infringing O2’s intellectual property by using bubbles and bubble sounds. However, 3 argued that its comparisons were accurate and the use of bubbles was ‘insufficiently similar’ to O2’s to constitute trademark infringement.
The judge said both sides had valid arguments, and noted that an operator – not a member of the public – was complaining about another operator.
After a hearing lasting a day and a half, Judge Pumfrey ruled that the adverts were ‘fair and honest’, and that 3 had not infringed O2’s trademark by featuring bubbles in the advertising. However, he left it open for O2 to prove the bubbles benefited its brand.
The two operators originally fell out after O2 complained about the adverts to the Advertising Standards Authority, which ruled in favour of O2 in eight out of nine complaints.
O2 has failed to stop 3 running comparative advertising on their prepay tariffs.
In an interlocutory hearing at the High Court last week, O2’s application for an injunction against 3’s ads failed on two counts: that the adverts were misleading in their comparisons and that they infringed O2’s intellectual property.
O2 claimed that 3 made unfair comparisons between their prepay tariffs and was infringing O2’s intellectual property by using bubbles and bubble sounds. However, 3 argued that its comparisons were accurate and the use of bubbles was ‘insufficiently similar’ to O2’s to constitute trademark infringement.
The judge said both sides had valid arguments, and noted that an operator – not a member of the public – was complaining about another operator.
After a hearing lasting a day and a half, Judge Pumfrey ruled that the adverts were ‘fair and honest’, and that 3 had not infringed O2’s trademark by featuring bubbles in the advertising. However, he left it open for O2 to prove the bubbles benefited its brand.
The two operators originally fell out after O2 complained about the adverts to the Advertising Standards Authority, which ruled in favour of O2 in eight out of nine complaints.