L'Oreal SA & Ors v Bellure NV & Ors

L'Oreal SA & Ors v Bellure NV & Ors

The use of comparison lists by the defendants constitutes trade mark infringement under Art. 5(1)(a) as it is not purely descriptive but used for advertising, does not comply with the Comparative Advertising Directive, and takes unfair advantage of the reputation of the trade marks; such use is not protected as honest practices or with due cause.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: L’Oréal SA; Claimant/respondent: Lancome Parfums et Beaute & CIE; Claimant/respondent: Laboratoire Garnier & CIE; Defendant/appellant: Bellure NV; Defendant/appellant: Malaika Investments Ltd (t/a Honeypot Cosmetic & Perfumery Sales); Defendant/appellant: Starion International Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property Appeal / Judgment on Appeal After ECJ Reference
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; trade mark infringement found.
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Infringement, Comparative Advertising, Free Speech, Unfair Advantage, Functions of Trade Marks
Intellectual Property Trade Mark Law Comparative Advertising Trade Mark Infringement Free Speech Unfair Advantage Functions of Trade Marks

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L’Oréal SA

Claimant/respondent

Lancome Parfums et Beaute & CIE

Claimant/respondent

Laboratoire Garnier & CIE

Claimant/respondent

Bellure NV

Defendant/appellant

Malaika Investments Ltd (t/a Honeypot Cosmetic & Perfumery Sales)

Defendant/appellant

Starion International Ltd

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property Appeal / Judgment on Appeal After ECJ Reference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether use of comparison lists infringes registered trade marks under Art. 5(1)(a)
  2. 2 Whether such use complies with the Comparative Advertising Directive
  3. 3 Whether failure to comply with the Directive constitutes 'unfair advantage' under Art. 5(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The use of comparison lists by the defendants constitutes trade mark infringement under Art. 5(1)(a) as it is not purely descriptive but used for advertising, does not comply with the Comparative Advertising Directive, and takes unfair advantage of the reputation of the trade marks; such use is not protected as honest practices or with due cause.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; trade mark infringement found.

Orders

  • Dispute about costs below to be resolved by written submissions or further hearing.
  • All other consequential matters to be agreed by parties.