Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
(Directive 89/104/EEC -" Trade marks -" Article 5(1) and (2) -" Use in comparative advertising -" Right to have such use prevented -" Taking unfair advantage of the repute of a trade mark -" Impairment of the functions of the trade mark -" Directive 84/450/EEC -" Comparative advertising -" Article 3a(1)(g) and (h) -" Conditions under which comparative advertising is permitted -" Taking unfair advantage of the reputation of a trade mark -" Presentation of goods as imitations or replicas)
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom), made by decision of 22 October 2007, received at the Court on 5 November 2007, in the proceedings
composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, M. Ilešič (Rapporteur), A. Tizzano, A. Borg Barthet and E. Levits, Judges,
having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 5 November 2008,
-" L-�Oréal SA, Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC and Laboratoire Garnier & Cie, by H. Carr QC and D. Anderson QC, and by J. Reid, Barrister, instructed by Baker & McKenzie LLP,
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.