Further to the previous article, we’ve obtained more information on the chronology of events and it’s a rum old tale indeed. When the original advert, claiming 3’s prices were better value than O2’s, was shown in August 2004, O2 immediately sought out a High Court injunction to take the advert off air, claiming the price comparison was unfair.

When the High Court refused to grant the injunction because the advert was true, O2 had a quick rethink and decided to drop its complaint over the price comparisons, but launched a new one over the use of the ‘bubble imagery’ in the advert. Obviously O2 use bubbles in their own adverts, so they claimed that 3’s use of the imagery constituted trademark infringement.

Again, the High Court dismissed the complaint and stated that 3 had complied with all the requirements for a lawful comparative advert, and that there was nothing confusing, denigrating or trademark infringing about it. The English Court of Appeal said 3 should win and emphasised that that the rules on comparative adverts should be interpreted in the way most favourable to the advertiser, as it promotes competition and benefits the consumer.

Because the Court of Appeal felt this decision would affect business and advertising across Europe, some of the points were sent to the European Court of Justice for consideration. Now the ECJ have returned their decision: 3 are still in the right. This means advertisers can now carry out comparative advertising in a more confident manner.

It also benefits consumers due to the fact that advertisers can now highlight when they have the best value deal, and not be creatively restricted while doing it! That’s got to be good, right?