Research Portal

Comparative Advertising : the battle of the Bubbles

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Standard Standard

Comparative Advertising : the battle of the Bubbles. / Johnson, H.A.; Johnson, H.
In: Communications law, Vol. 11, No. 2, 01.01.2006, p. 51-57.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

HarvardHarvard

Johnson, HA & Johnson, H 2006, 'Comparative Advertising : the battle of the Bubbles', Communications law, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 51-57.

APA

Johnson, H. A., & Johnson, H. (2006). Comparative Advertising : the battle of the Bubbles. Communications law, 11(2), 51-57.

CBE

Johnson HA, Johnson H. 2006. Comparative Advertising : the battle of the Bubbles. Communications law. 11(2):51-57.

MLA

Johnson, H.A. and H. Johnson. "Comparative Advertising : the battle of the Bubbles". Communications law. 2006, 11(2). 51-57.

VancouverVancouver

Johnson HA, Johnson H. Comparative Advertising : the battle of the Bubbles. Communications law. 2006 Jan 1;11(2):51-57.

Author

Johnson, H.A. ; Johnson, H. / Comparative Advertising : the battle of the Bubbles. In: Communications law. 2006 ; Vol. 11, No. 2. pp. 51-57.

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative Advertising : the battle of the Bubbles

AU - Johnson, H.A.

AU - Johnson, H.

PY - 2006/1/1

Y1 - 2006/1/1

N2 - The article analysed the implications of the High Court decision in O2 Holdings v Hutchinson 3G Ltd which involved the use of ‘knocking copy’ or comparative advertising in the mobile telephone industry. It considered the implications of using brand images similar to a competitor’s registered trade mark. In particular it considered the implications of an action alleging infringement of s10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and whether the defendant could rely on defences under s10(6) and s11(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.

AB - The article analysed the implications of the High Court decision in O2 Holdings v Hutchinson 3G Ltd which involved the use of ‘knocking copy’ or comparative advertising in the mobile telephone industry. It considered the implications of using brand images similar to a competitor’s registered trade mark. In particular it considered the implications of an action alleging infringement of s10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and whether the defendant could rely on defences under s10(6) and s11(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.

M3 - Article

VL - 11

SP - 51

EP - 57

JO - Communications law

JF - Communications law

SN - 1746-7616

IS - 2

ER -