Case C-44/01 Pippig Augenoptik Gmbh & Co. KG v Hartlauer ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Arrêt de la Cour Registrar: M.-F. Contet, Administrator, after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of: ─ Pippig Augenoptik GmbH & Co. KG, by F. Hitzenbichler, Rechtsanwalt, ─ Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH and Verlassenschaft nach dem verstorbenen Franz Josef Hartlauer, by A. Haslinger, H. Mück, P. Wagner, W. Müller and W. Graziani-Weis, Rechtsanwälte, ─ the Austrian Government, by C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent, ─ the Commission of the European Communities, by J. Sack and M. França, acting as Agents, having regard to the Report for the Hearing, after hearing the oral observations of Pippig Augenoptik GmbH & Co. KG, Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH, Verlassenschaft nach dem verstorbenen Franz Josef Hartlauer (the Estate of Franz Josef Hartlauer), and the Commission at the hearing on 23 April 2002, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 12 September 2002, gives the following Judgment 1 By order of 19 December 2000, received at the Court on 2 February 2001, the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC four questions on the interpretation of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 on misleading and comparative advertising (OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17), as amended by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 (OJ 1997 L 290 p. 18; Directive 84/450). 2 Those questions were raised in proceedings between the Austrian company Pippig Augenoptik GmbH & Co. KG ( Pippig), the Austrian company Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH ( Hartlauer) and the estate of Franz Josef Hartlauer, a former director of Hartlauer, concerning advertising by Hartlauer to promote the sale of its optical products by comparing them with spectacles sold by Pippig. Legal background Community legislation Page 4 of 18 3 Directive 84/450, which in its initial version concerned only misleading advertising, was http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62001J0044:EN:HTML 12/21/2008
Arrêt de la Cour amended by Directive 97/55 in order to cover comparative advertising as well. The title of Directive 84/450 was therefore amended by Article 1(1) of Directive 97/55. 4 The seventh recital in the preamble to Directive 84/450 states: Whereas minimum and objective criteria for determining whether advertising is misleading should be established for this purpose. 5 Article 1 of Directive 84/450 provides: The purpose of this Directive is to protect consumers, persons carrying on a trade or business or practising a craft or profession and the interests of the public in general against misleading advertising and the unfair consequences thereof and to lay down the conditions under which comparative advertising is permitted. 6 According to Article 2(2) of Directive 84/450, misleading advertising for the purposes of the directive means any advertising which in any way, including its presentation, deceives or is likely to deceive the persons to whom it is addressed or whom it reaches and which, by reason of its deceptive nature, is likely to affect their economic behaviour or which, for those reasons, injures or is likely to injure a competitor. 7 According to Article 2(2a) of Directive 84/450, comparative advertising means any advertising which explicitly or by implication identifies a competitor or goods or services offered by a competitor. 8 Article 3a(1) of Directive 84/450 provides: Comparative advertising shall, as far as the comparison is concerned, be permitted when the following conditions are met: (a) it is not misleading according to Articles 2(2), 3 and 7(1); (b) it compares goods or services meeting the same needs or intended for the same purpose; (c) it objectively compares one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative features of those goods and services, which may include price; (d) it does not create confusion in the market place between the advertiser and a competitor or between the advertiser's trade marks, trade names, other distinguishing marks, goods or services and those of a competitor; (e) it does not discredit or denigrate the trade marks, trade names, other distinguishing marks, goods, services, activities, or circumstances of a competitor; (f) for products with designation of origin, it relates in each case to products with the same designation; (g) it does not take unfair advantage of the reputation of a trade mark, trade name or other distinguishing marks of a competitor or of the designation of origin of competing products; (h) it does not present goods or services as imitations or replicas of goods or services bearing a protected trade mark or trade name. 9 Article 7(1) and (2) of Directive 84/450 provide: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62001J0044:EN:HTML Page 5 of 18 12/21/2008
Page 1 and 2: Arrêt de la Cour Case C-44/01 Pipp
Page 3: Arrêt de la Cour see paras 70-71,
Page 7 and 8: Arrêt de la Cour 11 The Republic o
Page 9 and 10: Arrêt de la Cour (4) Is a comparis
Page 11 and 12: Arrêt de la Cour Page 11 of 18 36
Page 13 and 14: Arrêt de la Cour 54 Given the cumu
Page 15 and 16: Arrêt de la Cour in the main proce
Page 17 and 18: Arrêt de la Cour 83 As for the sec

Case C-44/01 Pippig Augenoptik Gmbh & Co. KG v Hartlauer ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?