European Integration Studies, Miskolc, Volume 3. Number 1. (200! pp.

2"#
DEFINITION OF COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING
$%&E' MIS()*+,I#-).N/'
Professor of Law, Director of Institute of Civil Law
Head of Commercial Law Department, University of Miskolc
355 Miskolc!"#yetemv$ros, Hun#ary
jogdrmbp@uni-miskolc.hu
%ield of researc&' commercial law
Abstract' (&is study divided into t&ree parts) %irst c&apter tries to s&ow t&e economic function of t&e
comparative advertisin#, its risks, interests to *e protected and t&e main features of its re#ulation) (&e
second part is a*out t&e definition of comparative advertisin#) + new draft directive is analysed in
t&e t&ird c&apter as a possi*le solution to create two kinds of comparative advertisin#) In t&e
summary t&e aut&or tries to s&ortly assumin# main ideas of t&e study and #ives some remarks and
critics)
I. Comparative advertisin in enera!
,efore analysin# t&e definition of comparative advertisin# useful to s&ow t&e comparative
advertisin# in #eneral)
Comparative advertisin#, as a special form of advertisin#, is a sales promotion device t&at compares
t&e products or services of one undertakin# wit& t&ose of anot&er, or wit& t&ose of ot&er
competitors) +ll comparative advertisin# is desi#ned to &i#&li#&t t&e advanta#es of t&e #oods or
services offered *y t&e advertiser as compared to t&ose of a competitor) In order to ac&ieve t&is
o*-ective, t&e messa#e of t&e advertisement must necessarily underline t&e differences *etween t&e
#oods or services compared *y descri*in# t&eir main c&aracteristics) (&e comparison made *y t&e
advertiser will necessarily flow from suc& a description)
". F#nction o$ comparative advertisin
Comparative advertisin# s&ould ena*le advertisers to o*-ectively demonstrate t&e merits of t&eir
products) Comparative advertisin# improves t&e .uality of information availa*le to consumers
ena*lin# t&em to make well!founded and more informed decisions relatin# to t&e c&oice *etween
competin# products/services *y demonstratin# t&e merits of various compara*le products) ,ased on
t&is information, consumers may make informed and t&erefore efficient c&oices) 0(&ese statements
are true only if t&e comparative advertisin# is o*-ective)1
Comparative advertisin# w&ic& aims to o*-ectively and trut&fully inform t&e consumer promotes t&e
transparency of t&e market) Market transparency is also deemed to *enefit t&e pu*lic interest as t&e
functionin# of competition is improved resultin# in keepin# down prices and improvin# products)
Comparative advertisin# can stimulate competition *etween suppliers of #oods and services to t&e
consumer2s advanta#e)
%. Ris&s o$ comparative advertisin
Comparisons *etween #oods and services of different undertakin#s carry wit& t&em some
si#nificant risks) (&ere is a dan#er t&at once undertakin#s address t&e merits and inade.uacies of
competin# #oods or services, t&ey may *e tempted to deni#rate t&em or derive unfair advanta#es
from suc& inaccurate comparisons) 3ust like traditional forms of advertisin#, comparative
advertisin# seeks to *ot& assist t&e development of t&e undertakin# concerned and to inform

.e0inition o0 +omparati1e 2d1ertising

consumers) +lt&ou#& *ot& forms of advertisin# seek to attract customers, in case of comparative
advertisin#, commercial relations&ips may *e e4posed to t&e constant t&reat of unfair practices)
'. Interests
3.1. 200ected interests
Comparative advertisin# affects t&e interests of consumers as well as t&e interests of competitors,
interests of proprietary ri#&t&olders and, in t&is way, t&ose of t&e #eneral pu*lic)
Possi*le &arm of interests of consumers and interests of competitors is o*vious, *ut t&ere is a need
to s&ow t&e role of proprietary ri#&t&olders) Proprietary ri#&t&olders &ave a trade mark or a trade
name) (&is trade mark or trade name is used *y advertiser in comparative advertisin#) In order to
make comparative advertisin# more effective, it is useful for t&e advertiser to identify t&e #oods or
services of a competitor, makin# reference to a trade mark

or trade name 0&ereinafter to#et&er trade

mark1 of t&e proprietor) However, t&e &older of a trademark &as t&e e4clusive ri#&t to use it to
identify t&e products or services for w&ic& t&e trademark is re#istered, and to dispose t&ereof) (&e
scope of t&e e4clusive ri#&ts conferred *y trademark protection covers t&e ri#&t to use t&e trademark
for advertisin# purposes)
Proprietary ri#&t&olders are in a lot of cases same persons as competitors, *ut t&ey create a smaller
#roup of persons inside competitors) 5ometimes proprietary ri#&t&olders are different persons t&an
competitors, t&eir product or service is not a competitive one to advertiser6s product or service)
3.2. Interests to be protected
(&e interests to *e protected *y t&e law are t&e followin#'
t&e protection of competitors3
t&e protection of proprietar4 rig5t5olders7
t&e protection of consumers7 and
t&e protection of t&e general public interest in undistorted competition)
0i1 Due to t&e special c&aracteristics of comparative advertisin#, namely t&e direct or indirect
reference in t&e advertisin# to identifia*le competitors, it is important to protect t&e interests of suc&
competitors as well in order to prevent dispara#ement, or takin# of unfair advanta#e of t&e
competitor2s reputation) (&is consideration -ustifies t&e application of t&e #eneral rules on unfair
competition very t&orou#&ly and 8 w&ere necessary 8 t&e application of special conditions t&at
comparative advertisin# s&ould comply wit& in order to ensure t&at unfair use of t&e competitor6s
reputation and dispara#ements of competitors *e prevented)
0ii1 +s far as t&e proprietary ri#&t&olders are concerned t&e cases are related to t&e use of well!know
trademarks or trademarks en-oyin# #ood reputation) 9*viously, t&e affected trademark must &ave a
reputation in t&e market for t&e products or services provided) (&is reputation can economically *e
e4ploited) (rademark owners must &ave en-oy a wider scope of protection a#ainst takin# unfair
advanta#e of t&e reputation) In t&ese cases, consumers may more easily associate t&e products
compared *y t&e advertiser wit& t&e trademark of t&e trademark owner) (&ere are some main types
of e4amples'
- In a 6classical6 comparative advertisin# t&e advertiser compares its product or service to
competitor6s one, usin# its trademark durin# t&e comparison) (&e aim of competitor is to
evidence t&at its product or service is *etter t&an t&e competitor6s one) In my opinion t&ere is a
si#nificant difference *etween correct and incorrect comparison)
+ falls statement affects t&e interests of consumer as well as t&e interests of competitor 0as a
potential market looser1 and interests of proprietary ri#&t&older 0*ecause t&e value of its trade
1
(&e function of t&e trademark is to individuali:e and distin#uis& products or services)
;
.e0inition o0 +omparati1e 2d1ertising
mark can *e reduced1) Competitor and proprietary ri#&t&older in t&is case is t&e same person)
(&e falls comparison coses two types of &arms to t&e same person' to t&e competitor 0as a
potential market looser1 and to proprietary ri#&t&older 0*ecause t&e value of its trade mark can
*e reduced1)
"ven a true statement can *e considered as ille#al to a proprietary ri#&t&older) In t&is second
case t&e comparative advertisin# does not affect t&e competitor6s #oodwill, *ut t&e fre.uently
usin# of its trade mark can *e stated as unfair) "ven correct and o*-ective advertisin# may *e
considered unfair w&en it e4ploits t&e renown of a competitor *y attri*utin# to &is own product
t&e well!known .ualities of t&e product of t&e competitor) (&e e4ploitation of t&e reputation of
a competitor is admissi*le w&en it en&ances t&e transparency of t&e market and is limited in
form and content to w&at is necessary for t&is purpose 0principle o0 proportionalit41) Hence, a
company s&ould refrain from referrin# to its competitors and use t&eir trademarks, e4cept in
case of a*solute necessity)
- (&e advertiser #ives t&e impression t&at &e is advertisin# for t&e #oods of t&e trademark owner
instead of for &is own #oods)
- (&e use of a t&ird party6s trademark in advertisin# can mislead t&e pu*lic a*out t&e e4istin#
relations&ip *etween t&e advertiser and t&e owner of t&e trademark)
- (&e advertiser refers to t&e famous trademark or distinctive si#n to take advanta#e of its
renown and to favour its own product w&ic& it descri*es as *ein# as #ood) (&e two products are
not contrasted wit& eac& ot&er 0as in t&e first e4ample1, *ut descri*ed as *ein# *ot& as #ood)
<&en t&e reference to ot&ers6 trademark is com*ined wit& words suc& as =in t&e style of > =,
=type?, t&e =kind?, a risk of confusion may appear since t&e pu*lic does not take suc& words
into account) <it& respect to t&e use of trademarks in comparative advertisements, it is not
allowed to take unfair advanta#e of t&eir reputation *y way of assimilation) It was considered to
contravene pu*lic policy, if t&e advertiser tries to s&ow t&e .uality of its own products *y
comparin# t&em to well known ot&er products in order to make use of t&eir standin# and
reputation)
;
Usin# trademarks unfair way in comparative advertisin# is parasitism, i)e) t&e
e4ploitation of ot&ers6 reputation) 5o!called @parasite@ advertisin# takes advanta#e wit&out
restraint of t&e #ood reputation of a competin# or non!competin# product)
0iii1 Potential misleadin# nature of t&e comparative advertisin# is t&e main dan#er for consumers)
Pursuant to +rticle ; 0;1 of Directive A5B/CA, an advertisement is misleadin# if Din any way, includin#
its representation, it deceives or is likely to deceive t&e persons to w&om it is addressed or w&om it
reac&es and if, *y reason of its deceptive nature, it is likely to affect t&eir economic *e&aviour or, for
t&ose reasons, in-ures or is likely to in-ure a competitor)6 <&et&er a comparative advertisement is
misleadin# or not, depends on t&e understandin# of t&e relevant
3
pu*lic) (&e standard is an avera#e
consumer w&o is reasona*ly well!informed) + comparative advertisement would *e misleadin#,
t&erefore for*idden, if certain part
A
of t&e relevant pu*lic 8 consisted reasona*ly well!informed
consumers 8 would *e mislead) Price comparisons are especially dan#erous) 5tatin# alonly t&e
c&eaper price is can *e misleadin# to t&e consumer, if t&e difference in price is due to fact t&at t&e
more e4pensive product or service meets ore needs or &as more advanta#es)
;
9ne +ustran case involved a comparative advertisin# campai#n of a ma-or +ustrian dru#store, w&ere several products of
t&e dru#store6s newly esta*lis&ed &ouse!*rand were compared wit& well!known competin# *rand products 0for e4ample,
=Eodak?1) (&e advertisements only &i#&li#&ted t&e 8 su*stantially 8 lower price of t&e dru#store6s own products wit&out
esta*lis&in# w&y t&e compared products can *e seen as e.ual) +lmost similar factual pattern relatin# to well!known perfumes
&appened even in Hun#ary)
3
Felevant pu*lic is created *y people to w&om t&e advertisement is addressed or w&om it reac&es)
4
Directive does not use t&e =certain part of t&e pu*lic? p&rase, *ut Mem*er 5tates6 laws or court practices re.uire more t&an
one misleaded consumer' B!5 G of t&e pu*lic in t&e 5wiss law, or Da su*stancial proportion of t&e reasona*le audience6
0UE1)
3
.e0inition o0 +omparati1e 2d1ertising
+ furt&er possi*le dan#er of t&e comparative advertisin# for consumers is t&e confusion) + correct
comparative advertisement does not create confusion *etween t&e advertiser and its competitor)
5
0iv1 Havin# re#ard a Mem*er 5tate le#islation it cannot *e esta*lis&ed w&et&er in case of
comparative advertisements, t&e protection of t&e #eneral pu*lic interest in undistorted competition
constitutes an independent interest to *e protected or t&is is an a##re#ate result arisin# from t&e
protection of consumers, competitors and ri#&t&olders) %or t&e "C is very clear t&e independent
importance of #eneral pu*lic interest, namely stren#t&enin# of t&e internal market and limitin# #aps
of free movement of #oods and services 0see 5))1)
(. Di$$erent E#ropean attit#des
Comparative advertisin# as a kind of advertisin# &as a lon# &istory, *ut as a le#al term relatively
youn# p&enomenon) ,efore HIB Dcomparative advertisin# was not re#ulated *ecause it was re#arded
as insider .uestion of competitors, and it was supposed t&at rules of competition law offer ade.uate
protection6)
J
Lack of specific re#ulation leaded to t&e practical pro&i*ition) Comparison in an
advertisements #enerally was re#arded, as an ille#al market practice)
(&e +merican court parctice realised first t&at comparative advertisin# is a comple4, difficult
activity &avin# a lot of speciality) <&ile in t&e United 5tates comparative advertisin# &as *een a
well!reco#nised and accepta*le form of advertisin#, "urope was divided in t&is point of view) (&ere
were a si#nificant difference in "urope in t&e 5eventies) (&e ma-ority of "uropean countries &ave
*een &ostile to suc& advertisin# for a lon# time and t&is form of advertisin# was considered as a per
se unfair market practice) (&e comparative advertisin# was &eld too risky and dan#erous in most of
t&e continental countries) (&is met&od of advertisin# was pro&i*ited *y t&e #eneral rules of unfair
competition law, wit&out special le#al norms) Imre KLrLs s&ows t&e traditional Mermain
pro&i*ition)
I
6(&e UE &as a relatively li*eral re#ime permittin# comparative advertisin# in most
cases *ut in many continental countries all comparative advertisin#, even if true, &as *een classed as
unfair competition or automatically misleadin#)6
C
In t&e United Ein#dom and in Portu#al t&e
comparative advertisin# *ecame le#al)
H
I &ave to add, t&at t&is li*eralisation was relative,
comparative advertisin# even in "n#land was accepted only in certain circumstances) +rticles ;B!;A
of t&e ,ritis& Code of +dvertisin# Practice
B
contained detailed su##estions for comparison in
advertisements) Later accepted rules of "C Directive 0see 5))1 are similar to t&ese su##estions, so in
my opinion t&at t&ese, non o*li#atory, rules of t&e ,ritis& Code of +dvertisin# Practice were a kind
of pattern for t&e "uropean le#al &armonisation work) (ellin# me t&e trou#& t&e correct comparison
even in UE was not a*solutely free) (&e "n#lis& (rade Marks +ct 0H3C1 prevented muc&
comparative advertisin# not allowin# competitors to use re#istered trade marks wit&out t&e consent
5
5ome e4amples of confusion' consumer *ecame uncertain to w&om *elon#s tarde marks, w&et&er t&e advertiser is a
su*sidiary of t&e ot&er company or not and so one)
6
Pri*ula L$s:lN' + rekl$mtevOkenysO# Os a rekl$ms:er:PdOsek &a:ai -o#i s:a*$lyo:$sa
P&D diss:ert$ciN De*recen ;BB3), kO:irat H) p
I
KLrLs Imre' +: eurNpai verseny-o#ok kO:ikLnyve (FI9FM Eft), ,udapest HH) ;C p
8
Howard 3o&nson' Qew "U directive on comparative advertisin#
(olley6s Communications Law Kol 3 Qum*er ; HHC) JJ) p
H
5ee detailed way in Kida 5$ndor' +: Lss:e&asonlRtN rekl$m a: an#ol -o#rends:erS ors:$#ok*an ETl#a:das$#, 3o#i
MellOklet HH;/B)
10
(&e ,ritis& advertisin# industry &as a system of self!re#ulation w&ic& &as *een esta*lis&ed under t&e auspices of its
voluntary re#ulatory *ody, t&e +dvertisin# 5tandars +ut&ority 0+5+1) (&ere is a ,ritis& Code of +dvertisin# Practice w&ic&
is administered *y t&e code of advertisin# practice committee, and t&e committee and t&e +5+ deal wit& complaints of
*reac&es of t&e code)6 Miller!Harvey!Parry' Consumer and (radin# Law 94ford University Press, 94ford HHC) 533 p
A
.e0inition o0 +omparati1e 2d1ertising
of t&e ri#&t owner)

"ven 6t&e criteria in Mem*er 5tates w&ere comparative advertisin# is permitted

differs in several ways6)
;
+ kind of conver#ence started in t&e late 5eventies6 in UE and continued in Mermany in t&e
"i#&ties6)
In t&e "n#lis& court pra4is &ave arrived cases w&en a comparative advertisin# created a Dpassin#!off6)
%alls statement t&at t&e advertiser6s movie is *ased on some*ody else6s successful novel was
accepted as a passin#!off *y t&e court)
3
In HIH a new tort was created) (&e tort of unfair
competition in certain cases covered even t&e comparative advertisin#) 5eller6s falls statement a*out
t&at its products are *etter t&an its competitor2s products &arms t&e competitors #oodwill)
A
In t&e Mermain Law t&e price!comparin# *ecame le#al in HCC, e4cept it is contrary to t&e *usiness
fairness)
5
Presented e4amples on conver#ence do not effect t&e fact t&at "urope was divided in t&e point of
view of acceptance on comparative advertisin#) (&is situation closed a lot of pro*lems)
J
5o t&e "C
le#islation 0see it in 5)1 was a #reat step forward)
). EC re#!ation on comparative advertisin
".1. *egalit4 o0 comparati1e ad1ertising
Comparative advertisin# is considered *y t&e "uropean Union as a le#itimate means of informin#
consumers of t&e advanta#e of t&e product or service compared wit& t&at of a competitor) (&e "C
accepted t&e comparative advertisin# *ot& *y t&e le#islation *ot& *y t&e court practice)
0i1 (&e reform is ac&ieved *y amendin# t&e Directive CA/A5B/""C concernin# misleadin#
advertisin#
I
so as to include comparative advertisin# 0&ereinafter' t&e @.irecti1e@1)
C
"uropean
Parliament and of t&e Council adopted an amendin# Directive
16
0&ereinafter' t&e @.irecti1e 678""@1
in HHI)
In my opinion t&ere were t&ree reasons to accept t&e comparative advertisin# *y t&e "uropean
le#islation)
11
Pro&i*ition was cancelled only in HHA) 5ection B0J1 (rade Marks +ct HHA now allows t&e use of a competitor6s trade
mark provided t&e use is 0i1 in accordance wit& D&onest practices in industrial and commercial matters, and 0ii1 not Dwit&out
due cause takin# unfair advanta#e of or *ein# detrimental to t&e distinctive c&aracter of t&e trade mark6)
12
+dvertisin# and t&e consumer wit&in t&e "uropean Community, "C Cnsumer Information pro#ramme
Eestrel Communications, London HH3) ; p
13
5amuelson v) Producers Distri*utin# Co) Ltd) AC FPC 5H3
14
"rven <arninc ,esloten Kennootsc&ap and ot&ers v) 3) (ownend and 5ons, Hull and ot&ers
HI; ; +ll "n#land Feports H;I) Cases and t&e tendencies are analysed *y Imre KLrLs in KLrLs Imre' +: eurNpai
verseny-o#ok kO:ikLnyve ;) kiad$s Lo#od ,t), ,udapest HHJ) ;J!;I pp
5
5ee more detailed way in KLrLs Imre' +: eurNpai verseny-o#ok kO:ikLnyve ;) kiad$s Lo#od ,t), ,udapest HHJ) ; p
16
DQumerous users of commercial communications also complain t&at t&ey cannot use comparative advertisin# in certain
Mem*er 5tates, and are t&erefore forced to redesi#n enterely t&eir commecial communication campai#ns in t&ose territories)
(&e complaints focus on Mermany, ,el#ium, %rance and t&e Qet&erlands) 9n t&is, t&e Commission &as proposed t&at
comparative dvertisin# s&ould *e permitted as lon# as it is *ased on o*-ective comparsons t&at are not used to deni#rate t&e
trademark or reputation of a competitor) +t t&e level of Council, political a#reement on t&is proposed directive was reac&ed
in Qovem*er HH5)2 Commercial Communication in t&e Internal Market 8 Mreen paper from t&e Commission ,russels,
BC)B5)HHJ), C9M0HJ1 H; final)
17
93 L;5B, I, H 5eptem*er HCA)
C
%ollowin# t&e adoption of .irecti1e 678"" all "U mem*er states &ave introduced t&e comparative advertisin# into t&e
national le#al systems)
19
.irecti1e 678""8E+ of of J 9cto*er HHI
5
.e0inition o0 +omparati1e 2d1ertising
%irst ! more t&eoretic 8 *ase for t&e le#alisation t&is kind of advertisin# was a constitutional one' t&e
freedom of speec&) In *usiness, t&e constitutional 0fundamental1 principle re#ardin# freedom of
speec& is ine4trica*ly intertwined wit& t&e freedom of advertisin#)
;B
5econd reason was to ensure free movement of advertisements as a service)
(&ird 8 more practical 8 *asis was t&ren#tenin# t&e insider market) +dvertisin# is a typical cross!
*oarder activity) Different national attitudes' t&e acceptance or non!acceptance of comparative
advertisin# in t&e various national laws, may constitute an o*stacle to t&e free movement of #oods
and services and create distortions vis!U!vis of competition)
%ourt& reason was t&ren#tenin# t&e competition in insider market) (rue and not misleadin#
comparative advertisin# is a useful instrument for ac.uisition of market at competitors6 costs) (&is
competition!related reason *ecame more powerful in decisions t&e "uropean Court of 3ustice
0"C31)
;
+cceptation t&e comparative advertisin# looks like contrary to t&e consumer protection) (&e
"uropean Parliament and t&e Council defined a lot of re.uirements to protect consumers 0see 5);)1)
0ii1 (&e "uropean Court of 3ustice 0"C31 and t&e Court of %irst Instance &ave interpreted t&e meanin#
of certain provisions of t&e Directive in t&ree cases)
;;
(&ese decisions &ave #reat importance in clear
understandin# of re.uirements 0see 5);)1 for le#al comparative advertisin#)
;3
(&e Pipin# case
;A
in my
opinion &elps to understand t&e real place of comparative advertisin#) (&e "uropean Court of 3ustice
&eld t&at Dt&e Directive carried out an e4&austive &armonisation of t&e conditions under w&ic&
comparative advertisin# in Mem*er 5tates mi#&t *e lawful) 5uc& a &armonisation implies *y its
nature t&at t&e lawfulness of comparative advertisin# t&rou#&out t&e Community is to *e assessed
solely *y t&e criteria laid down *y t&e Community le#islation) (&erefore, stricter national provisions
on t&e protection a#ainst misleadin# advertisin# cannot *e applied to comparative advertisin# wit&
re#ard to t&e form and content of t&e comparison)6 (&is Decision clearly s&ows t&at t&e "C
comparative advertisin# le#islation is mainly *elon# to t&e internal market) In my opinion
t&ren#t&enin# of t&e free movement of #oods and services was muc& more important for t&e
"uropean Parliament and t&e Council, t&an t&e consumer protection) Consumer protection le#islation
is a minimum &armonisation) Mem*er 5tates &as ri#&t to adapt stricter rules, t&ey can provide a
&i#&er level protection for consumers, t&an t&e "uropean Directives) Mem*er 5tets &ave no similar
ri#&t connected to t&e comparative advertisin#)
;5
(&is is t&e main evidence t&at le#islation on
comparative advertisin# is not a part of consumer protection) (&ese topics are connected, *ut
20
Pursuant to +rticle B of t&e European +on1ention on 9uman 'ig5ts 0Fome, H5B1, every person &as t&e ri#&t to freedom
of e4pression) (&is ri#&t s&all include freedom to &old opinions and impart information and ideas wit&out interference *y
pu*lic aut&ority) (&e e4ercise of t&ese freedoms, since it carries wit& it duties and responsi*ilities, may *e su*-ect to suc&
formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescri*ed *y law and are necessary in a democratic society > for t&e
protection of t&e reputation or t&e ri#&ts of ot&ers) 0(&is limitation &as an important role in case of comparative advertisin#)1
21
6+dvertisin# is an important element of t&e competitive situation on any #iven market, since it provides a *etter picture of
t&e merits of eac& of t&e operators, t&e .uality of t&eir services and t&eir fees) %urt&ermore, w&en it is fair and in accordance
wit& t&e appropriate rules, comparative advertisin# makes it possi*le in particular to provide more information to users and
t&us &elp t&em c&oose a professional representative int &e Community as a w&ole w&om t&ey may approac&) Conse.uently, a
simple pro&i*ition of comparative advertisin# restrict t&e a*ility of more efficient professional representatives to develop
t&eir servisec, wit& t&e conse.uence, inter alia, t&at t&e clientele of eac& professional representative is crystallised wit&in a
national market)6 03ud#ement of t&e Court of %irst Instance of ;C Marc& ;BB) Institute of Professional Fepresentatives
*efore t&e "uropean Patent 9ffice v Commission of t&e "uropean Communities, Case ( 8 AA/HH), I;!IA1
22
(&ree cases can *e mentioned *y t&e "uropean Court of 3ustice 0"C31 and t&e Court of %irst Instance as interpretin# 8 and
developin# in my understandin# ! t&e Directive' 0i1 Case C!;/HH, &os5iba Europe :mb9 1. (atun :erman4 :mb9, ;5
9cto*er ;BB7 0ii1 Case C!AA/B, $ippig 2ugenoptik :mb9 ; +o. (: 1. 9artlauer 9andelsgesellsc5a0t mb9, C +pril ;BB3,
and 0iii1 Case (!AA/HH, Institute o0 $ro0essional 'epresentati1es be0ore t5e European $atent )00ice 1 +ommission o0 t5e
European +ommunities)
23
Court decisions are not analysed in t&is study *ecause t&ey conected mainly to t&e re.uirements of t&e comparative
advertisement, *ut my topic is t&e definition of t&e comparative advertisin#)
24
Case C!AA/B
J
.e0inition o0 +omparati1e 2d1ertising
comparative advertisin# is lar#er t&an protection of consumers a#ainst misleadin# advertisin#) (&ere
are ot&er protectin# interests 0as you could &ave seen in 3)1 too, and le#al met&ods are different)
".2. *egal re<uirements
5);)) Fe#ulation on misleadin# advertisin#
Comparative advertisin# s&ould comply wit& restrictions applica*le to all advertisements' t&at is, it
s&all not cause confusion, mislead, or discredit a competitor)
;J
Due to t&e special nature of
comparative advertisin#, &owever, certain additional re.uirements s&ould *e applied to t&is type of
advertisin# 0see 5););)1
5););) +dditional rules for comparative advertisin#
Comparative advertisin# is a le#itimate means of informin# consumers of t&e advanta#e of t&e
product or service compared wit& t&at of a competitor) In order to #uarantee t&at it fulfils t&is
o*-ective, comparative advertisin# must *e used in a fair manner) It is important to esta*lis& special
criteria for o*-ective comparisons and rules wit& re#ard to t&e possi*ility to compare products and
services)
(&ere are positive re.uirements 0i)e), t&e o*-ective comparison of material, relevant and verifia*le
features of t&e #oods1 and ne#ative re.uirements 0i)e), not to *e misleadin#, not causin# confusion,
not discreditin# t&e competitor1 w&ic& comparative advertisin# s&ould comply wit&)
;I
*. E+#iva!ent re+#irements in Member States
=.1. *egalit4 o0 comparati1e ad1ertising
+ll t&e "U countries &ave implemented t&e Directive in t&eir le#al systems) Comparative
advertisin# is #enerally permitted, &owever, su*-ect to certain circumstances set fort& in t&e national
law)
=.2. *egal re<uirements
In t&e continental "uropean countries
;C
t&e rules on comparative advertisin# are *ased on statutor4
la>, alt&ou#& t&e interpretation of suc& rules &ave *een developed *y t&e court practice, in certain
;5
Meneral rules for unfair competition does not provide sufficient le#al certainty and leaves too wide a scope for diver#ence of
national laws and -urisprudence w&ic& would &inder cross!*order trade) 5o additional re.uirements s&ould *e applied to
comparative advertisin#)
26
.irecti1e ?8"08EE+ concernin# misleadin# advertisin#
;I
Pursuant to +rticle 30a101 of t&e Directive, comparative advertisin# s&all, as far as t&e comparison is concerned, *e
permitted w&en t&e followin# conditions are met'
0a1 it is not misleadin#7
0*1 it compares #oods or services meetin# t&e same needs or intended for t&e same purpose7
0c1 it o*-ectively compares one or more material, relevant, verifia*le and representative features of t&ose #oods and
services, w&ic& may include price7
0d1 it does not create confusion in t&e market place *etween t&e advertiser and a competitor or *etween t&e
advertiser6s trade marks, trade names, ot&er distin#uis&in# marks, #oods or services and t&ose of a competitor7
0e1 it does not discredit or deni#rate t&e trade marks, trade names, ot&er distin#uis&in# marks, #oods, services,
activities, or circumstances of a competitor7
0f1 for products wit& a desi#nation of ori#in, it relates in eac& case to products wit& t&e same desi#nation7
0#1 it does not take unfair advanta#e of t&e reputation of a trade mark, trade name or ot&er distin#uis&in# marks of a
competitor or of t&e desi#nation of ori#in of competin# products7
0&1 it does not present #oods or services as imitations or replicas of #oods or services *earin# a protected trade mark
or trade name, and
0i1 any comparison referrin# to a special offer s&all indicate in a clear and une.uivocal way t&e date on
w&ic& t&e offer ends or, w&ere appropriate, t&at t&e special offer is su*-ect to t&e availa*ility of t&e #oods and services, and,
w&ere t&e special offer &as not yet *e#un, t&e date of t&e start of t&e period durin# w&ic& t&e special price or ot&er specific
conditions s&all apply)
28
In t&e United Ein#dom, t&e rules on comparative advertisin# are a mi4ture of statutory law and case law)
I
.e0inition o0 +omparati1e 2d1ertising
countries *y ar*itration) In addition to statutory rules, t&ere are pro0essional codes and industr4
sel0#regulation rules relatin# to comparative advertisin#)
J);)) Fe.uirements developed *y statutory law
(&e admissi*ility of comparative advertisin# will *e e4amined in t&e li#&t of t&e criteria set fort& in
t&e Directive) Fecital 01 of t&e Directive provides t&at t&e a*ove listed conditions for comparative
advertisin# s&ould *e cumulative and s&ould *e respected in t&eir entirety) %urt&er, t&e "C3 &eld
t&at t&e Directive carried out an e4&austive &armonisation of t&e conditions under w&ic&
comparative advertisin# in Mem*er 5tates mi#&t *e lawful) (&erefore, stricter national provisions
on t&e protection a#ainst misleadin# advertisin# cannot *e applied to comparative advertisin# wit&
re#ard to t&e form and content of t&e comparison)
;H
Qational le#islation6s &ave no ri#&t to develop additional criteria for t&e admissi*ility
of t&e comparative advertisin# comparin# t&e Directive) However, t&ere are certain
furt&er criteria applica*le wit& respect to certain #oods and/or services or set fort& in
professional codes and/or industry self re#ulation rules relatin# to comparative
advertisin#)
J););) Provisions in professional codes of conducts and/or industry self!re#ulation
In some
3B
countries, in certain fields of *usiness or industry 0p&armaceutical industry, consumer
credit1, t&e le#islators enacted special rules on t&e admissi*ility of comparative advertisin#)
3
5pecial rules applica*le to comparative advertisin# in certain fields of *usiness 0i)e), media, t&e toys
industry, investment *ankin#, pension funds, p&armaceuticals, professional services, and wit&in
lawyers1, in addition to t&e #eneral rules on advertisin# restrictions, can *e found in self!re#ulatory
code of conducts)
3;

Le#al or ille#al nature of t&ese rules must *e decided on t&e *ase of partly Directive, partly ot&er
"uropean norms)
0i1 +rticle I 051 of t&e Directive provides t&at not&in# in t&is Directive s&all prevent Mem*er 5tates
from, in compliance wit& t&e provisions of t&e (reaty, maintainin# or introducin# *ans or
limitations on t&e use of comparisons in t&e advertisin# of professional services, w&et&er imposed
directly or *y a *ody or or#anisation responsi*le, under t&e law of t&e Mem*er 5tates, for re#ulatin#
t&e e4ercise of a professional activity)
0ii1 <it& respect to t&e re.uirement of @in compliance wit& t&e provisions of t&e (reaty@, in Case
Institute of Professional Fepresentatives *efore t&e "uropean Patent 9ffice v Commission of t&e
"uropean Communities
33
, t&e Court of %irst Instance of t&e "uropean Communities &eld t&at t&e
provisions of t&e code of conduct *y pro&i*itin# advertisin# comparin# professional representatives,
constitute restrictions of competition for t&e purposes of +rticle C "C, t&us, +rticle I 051 of t&e
Directive does not e4empt in itself suc& rules from t&e provisions of t&e (reaty)
29
Case C!AA/B, $ippig, para AA
3B
In ot&er countries 0t&e Qet&erlands1 t&ere are only suc& product or service specific re.uirements t&at
often include an o*li#ation to provide certain information *ut t&ese would apply to all advertisin#)
3
It s&all *e noted t&at in t&e UE, it is a criminal offence for anyone to issue an advertisement w&ic&
su##ests t&at t&e effects of a particular medicinal product intended for &uman use are *etter t&an, or
e.uivalent to t&ose of an identifia*le treatment or medicinal product)
32
Menerally, t&e self!re#ulatory rules are only *indin# for t&e mem*ers of eac& association) In some cases mem*ers&ip is
compulsory for professionals 0i)e), for lawyers, in t&e correspondin# ,ar +ssociation1)
33
Case (!AA/HH
C
.e0inition o0 +omparati1e 2d1ertising
,. -#narian re#!ation
&5ere is no place to anal4se t5e 9ungarian regulator4 5istor4 o0 comparati1e ad1ertising, but I
5a1e to mention t5at t5is topic 5ad 5ig5 le1el regulation in @n0air +ompetition 2ct in 16?. 2t t5at
time t5is met5od >as 0orbidden in t5e most continental countries and E+ onl4 planned to regulate
t5is problem (.irecti1e >as created onl4 13 4ears later!.
3

&oda4, similarl4 to ot5er Member StetsA solutions, comparati1e ad1ertising is generall4 permitted,
5o>e1er, subBect to certain circumstances set 0ort5 in t5e national la>. +onstruction o0 t5e
regulator4 >ork is also 1er4 close to t5e Cestern#European patterns.
0i1 (&e rules on comparative advertisin# are defined *y statutory law, in specific rules, in addition to
t&e #eneral rules on unfair competition) Main rules *elon# to advertisin# law
35
, *ut t&ey are in
stron# correlation wit& t&e competition law rules
3J
Interests of competitors as well as t&ose of
consumers are protected *y *ot& +cts)
0ii1 Case law is relatively well developed on comparative advertisin#) (&ere are a lot of interestin#
cases in Hun#arian court practice)
3I
0iii1 (&e present Hun#arian Code of +dvertisement!"t&ics 0;BB1 contains a *rief rule)
3C
Moreover,
t&e *eer industry &as a Code of +dvertisement!"t&ics, and t&e to*acco industry a 5elf Fe#ulatin#
+#reement) (&e self re#ulatin# rules laid down in t&ese Codes are *indin# for t&e market
participants of t&e #iven industry) (&ey cannot *e enforced, *ut &avin# aut&ority in t&e relevant
industry, reference is made to t&em from time to time in decisions of t&e Competition Council or of
t&e Courts)
II. De$inition o$ comparative advertisin
Le#al literature
3H
is &eavily concentrated to s&ow and partly to analyse t&e re.uirements of
comparative advertisin#, its definition looks like a second ran#e .uestion) (&is topic #enerally is
missin# from *ooks and articles) In my opinion it is important to determine t&e comparative
advertisin# firstly *ecause only t&is type of comparison can *e re#arded as lawful in certain
circumstances, secondly *ecause in t&is case le#al re.uirements mast *een followed)
AB

1.Legal definition of comparative advertising
(&is study concentrates to t&e "uropean definition)
A
Pursuant to +rticle ;a) of t&e Directive,
Dcomparative advertisin# means any advertisin# w&ic& e4plicitly or *y implication identifies a
34
Period HHB!;BB) is analysed *y Imre KLrLs) Mistakes of Hun#arian le#islation are criticised *y t&e aut&or) KLrLs Imre'
Fekl$ms:a*$lyok a versenytLrvOny*en, 3o#tudom$nyi EL:lLny HHI) ) AJ) p
35
+ct Qo) LKIII of HHI
36
+ct LKII of HHJ 8 on t&e Pro&i*ition of Unfair and Festrictive Market Practices +ct LKII of HHJ 8 on t&e Pro&i*ition of
Unfair and Festrictive Market Practices
37
%or e4amle' D+uc&an is t&e c&eapest 8 (esco is t&e most e4pensive6 K-!;BH/;BBB
3C
+rt) 5 031 of t&e Hun#arian Code of +dvertisement!"t&ics is very *rief and it provides t&at' =(&e data offered in
comparative advertisements must *e impartial and suita*le to *e proved wit& an unam*i#uous and professional
e4amination)?
39
Eardos Lea 8 5u&a-da Vsu:sanna' Fekl$m-o#i Os rekl$metikai kO:ikLnyv, EL:#a:das$#i Os 3o#i EiadN ,udapest) HHC,
Eas:ainO dr Me:ey Eatalin' %o#yas:tNi -o#ok HKM9rac Lap! Os ELnvykiadN ,udapest HHC), MiklNssy 5$ndor Volt$n'
Fekl$mtLrvOny komoly s:i#orRt$sok CO# Os 3o# ;BB/3), QOmet& MyLr#y' + rekl$m Os a versenytLrvOny Colle#a HHC/),
5$ndor Istv$n' + ma#yar fo#yas:tNvOdelmi -o#, UQIW EiadN, ,udapest ;BB3) I;!I5 p)
40
9utside of comparative advertisin# re.uirements listed in Directive &ave no real le#al importance)
41
Hun#arian definition of comparative advertisin is in 3)
H
.e0inition o0 +omparati1e 2d1ertising
competitor, or #oods or services offered *y a competitor.A Fecital 0J1 of t&e Directive HI/55 sets
fort& t&at it is desira*le to provide a *road concept of comparative advertisin# in order to cover all
types of comparative advertisin#)
1.1. Identi0ication
))) Identification of a competitor
Comparative advertisements is not only a*out t&e advertiser, *ut a*out an ot&er le#al or natural
person) It is not re.uired to e4pressly mention t&e name of t&e competitor in t&e comparative
advertisin#) (&ere are several different ways to identify a competitor in a comparative
advertisement or, even if t&e competitor2s name is not mentioned) However, it must *e clear t&at t&e
competitor is affected *y t&e statement7 t&erefore, suc& reference must *e clear and unmistaka*le,
and must esta*lis& in any manner a link *etween two persons 0i)e) advertiser and its competitor1)
));) Identification of #oods or services offered *y a competitor
Comparative advertisements is not only a*out t&e advertiser products, *ut a*out #oods or services
offered *y a competitor. 5imilarly to t&e identification of a competitor in t&is case comparative
advertisements must esta*lis& in any manner a link *etween t&e #oods or services of t&e advertiser
and t&e #oods or services of one or more competitors)
1.2. Met5ods o0 identi04ing t5e competitor or its product
(&ere are several different ways to identify a competitor or its product in a comparative
advertisement) 5uc& reference can *e made directly or indirectly) D+ttempts to limit comparative
advertisin# to only e4plicit advertisin# were ultimately re-ected)6
A;
+ny reference made to t&e competitor or its #oods or services, e4plicitly or implicitly, is considered
to *e comparative advertisin#)
It does not make any difference w&et&er t&e comparison is direct or indirect) 9*viously, in cases of
indirect comparison, it may *e easier to prove t&at t&e advertisin# does not constitute comparative
advertisin#, since t&e implied reference to a competitor, or to &is #oods, services must *e clear
enou#& for a standard 0well!informed1 consumer and t&ere is more room for interpretation for t&e
courts in suc& types of cases) (&us, t&e understandin# of t&e respective tar#et #roup of t&e
advertisin# s&all *e taken into consideration)
);)) Direct identification
+ competitor is reco#nisa*le directly if it is in particular mentioned in t&e comparison or
fi#uratively represented)
A3

);)) Indirect identification
(o *e covered *y t&e scope of t&e definition, it is also sufficient, if t&e competitor can *e reco#nised
indirectly) Feference can *e made even indirectly, *y implication or insinuation) (&e "C3 &eld t&at
in order for t&ere to *e comparative advertisin# wit&in t&e meanin# of +rticle ;a) of Directive, it is
42
Howard 3o&nson' Qew "U directive on comparative advertisin#
(olley6s Communications Law Kol 3 Qum*er ; HHC) JJ) p
43
In an +ustrian comparative (K advertisements advertiser s&ows t&e entrance of t&e *uildin# , w&ere was t&e set of its
competitor) 0Hartlauer Case C!AA/B, see it detailed way in <orld (rademark Law Feport, H of 3une, ;BB3), or in article of
5$ndor Kida on comparative advertisements)1
B
.e0inition o0 +omparati1e 2d1ertising
sufficient for a representation to *e made in any form w&ic& refers, even *y implication, to a
competitor or to t&e #oods or services w&ic& &e offers)
AA
Indirect identification can *e reco#nised on t&e *asis of'
0i1 reference to t&e advertisement of t&e competitor,
0ii1 reference to *usiness circumstances of t&e competitor,
0iii1 direct or indirect #roup desi#nations, or
0iv1 situation on t&e relevant market) 0Lastly mentioned met&od is &eavily ar#ued, see ;)J)1 In
certain Mem*er 5tates
A5
an advertisement claimin# superiority was deemed to include a
reference to identifia*le competitor0s1, as t&e num*er of t&e advertiser6s competitors on t&e
relevant market was very small and could easily *e mana#ed)
%. Comparison
+s t&is study mentioned earlier t&e most classical types of comparative advertisin#, w&en
comparison of t&e advertiser and its competitors, or comparison of t&eir products is t&e main
element of t&e advertisin# activity) +lso clear t&at some comparisons can not *e re#arded as
comparative advertisements) (&e definition of comparative advertisin# clearly does not include
comparisons of an advertiser6s own products) %or e4ample an advertiser promotes a dis&was&er
deter#ent *y usin# t&e p&rase =one &undred per cent more was&in# power?) (&is p&rase means t&at
new material is two times effective, t&an advertiser6s earlier product) (&e mentioned advertisements
compares advertiser6s own products from .uality point of view) Price comparisons are also
fre.uently used) +dvertisements states t&at t&e actual price of advertiser6s product is smaller t&an
t&e earlier price was)
AJ
(&is comparison does not refer to an identifia*le competitor or its product)
(&is type of comparison is outside t&e definition of comparative advertisin#) (&ese special kinds of
8 .uality or price 8 comparisons are re#ulated *y advertisin# related rules of t&e unfair competition
law, w&ic& means t&at t&ey were allowed if t&ey were not misleadin#)
+s one can reco#nise t&ere are clear cases, w&en relatively easy to decide w&et&er a comparison can
or can not *e re#arded as comparative advertisements) However new types of comparison &ave
arise, and *orders sometimes are less clear)
;)) D+*stract6 comparison
&5e so called DabstractA comparison does not re0er to an identi0iable competitor or product.
Cit5out # eEplicit or implicit # identi0ication o0 t5e competitor or its goods or ser1ices, in a case o0
abstract comparison t5ere is no possibilit4 to speak about comparati1e ad1ertising.
7
;);) 5ystem comparison
(&e so called Dsystem comparison6 aims at demonstratin# t&e merits of different means of
distri*ution, production, application or functionin# of products or services 0for e4ample, t&e
comparison *etween t&e system =tampon? versus t&e system =sanitary towel?1)
<it&out ! e4plicit or implicit ! identification of t&e competitor or its #oods or services, in a case of
system comparison t&ere is no possi*ility to speak a*out comparative advertisin#)
AC

44
C!;/HH, (os&i*a, para 3)
45
+s suc&, in +ustria) %urt&er, if an undertakin# &as a dominant position in t&e market, ,el#ian -urisprudence considers t&e
comparative advertisin# as a comparison wit& suc& dominant undertakin#)
46
(&is is t&e so!called =instead of? price comparisons) (&e classic pattern is to say =instead of? and cross out a &i#&er price)
AI
@nder 2ustrian la> abstract comparison is outside t5e scope o0 t5e de0inition o0 comparati1e ad1ertisements.
48
5ystem comparison are considered *y +ustrian court pratice as a*stract comparative advertisin# *ecause t&e system
comparisons usually do not refer to an identifia*le competitor or product)

.e0inition o0 +omparati1e 2d1ertising

;)3) DPlural6 advertisements
&5is situation is opposite t5an cases in DabstractA or s4stem comparison. In t5is case >e can 0ind
identi0ied persons and8or products. &5e problem is t5at t5ere are more t5an one person as
competitors and8or more t5an one product as competitorsA goods or ser1ices. &5is is in m4
terminolog4 t5e DpluralA ad1ertisements. 9a1e not decided 4et >5et5er a comparison >it5 non one
competitor, but more competitors can be <uali0ied as a comparati1e ad1ertising.
6
2n
ad1ertisements can establis5 a link bet>een t5e ad1ertiser and more competitor, or goods or
ser1ices o00ered b4 t5e ad1ertiser and more competitor. Fuestion >eat5er t5is DpluralA
ad1ertisements belongs to t5e comparati1e ad1ertising or t5is is somet5ing else.
<e can find two 8 different 8 answers' one derived from t&e te4t of t&e definition and one from t&e
aim of "uropean le#islator)
Pursuant to +rticle ;a) of t&e Directive, Dcomparative advertisin# means any advertisin# w&ic&
e4plicitly or *y implication identifies a competitor, or #oods or services offered *y a competitor)6
(&e te4t mentions only one competitor 0directly or t&rou#& its #oods or services1) Havin# re#ard
only t&e te4t, t&e answer' t&e Dplural6 advertisements can not *e .ualified as a comparative
advertisin#) <&at does it menX Fe.uirements for comparative advertisin# are irrelevant for Dplural6
advertisements) In my opinion t&is is a *ad result)
Havin# re#ard t&e function of t&e "C re#ulation I would prefer an ot&er answered' t&e Dplural6
advertisements *elon#s to t&e comparative advertisin#) +dd to t&e aim of t&e re#ulation, t&e
stren#t&en of t&e insider market 0as you &ave seen in I) 3)1, we can mention Fecital 0J1 of t&e
Directive HI/55 sets fort& t&at it is desira*le to provide a *road concept of comparative advertisin#
in order to cover all types of comparative advertisin#)
(&e lar#er interpretation looks like 8 in my opinion 8 correct, and more useful, t&an t&e narrower)
Conse.uence of t&is lar#er interpretation, t&at advertiser &as to follow re.uirements for comparative
advertisin# re#ulated in national laws on t&e *ase of Directive HI/55) In ot&er case comparison is
not permissi*le)
;)A) Qon!commercial comparison
+omparati1e ad1ertising is a market be5a1iour. Necessit4 o0 its special regulation, as 4ou 5a1e
seen in ".1., based on market#related reasons. In t5e practice eEist comparisons >it5out
commercial purposes. (-est eEamples see in 2.".! )nl4 t5e comparison made 0or commercial
purposes 0alls under t5e scope o0 comparati1e ad1ertising. +onse<uentl4, comparisons (tests! made
b4 t5ird parties (i.e., consumer organisations! to pro1ide in0ormation to t5e public does not
constitute a comparati1e ad1ertisement pro1ided it does not promote an4 goods or ser1ices.
2.". +omparison made b4 t5ird parties
Comparisons can *e divided 0i1 comparisons made *y competitors and 0ii1 comparison tests
prepared *y t&ird parties w&o are not competitors) In many countries, product testin# is done *y
consumer or#anisations and/or private or pu*lic institutions like t&e press, television and ot&er
media) It s&all *e e4amined as to w&et&er t&e results of t&eir testin# may *e used in advertisin#)
;)5) (est comparisons
AH
Under 5wiss law, comparative advertisin# may refer to an indeterminate num*er of competitors) Pursuant to UE case law,
re#ardin# implied references to a competitor, case law su##ests t&at w&ere an e4pression is suc& t&at it can only *e construed
as referrin# to one competitor, t&at is likely to amount to identifyin# t&at one competitor)
;
.e0inition o0 +omparati1e 2d1ertising
It is #enerally permitted in Mem*er 5tates to carry out test comparisons and to pu*lis& t&e results)
(&ere are no le#al restrictions on t&ird parties carryin# out test comparisons on products)
5imilarly, t&ere are no restrictions on pu*lis&in# correct
5B
test results)
In my opinion test comparisons can not *e re#arded as comparative advertisin#)
5
9nly t&e
comparison made for commercial purposes falls under t&e scope of comparative
advertisin#) 9r#anisations 0w&ic& are not related to t&e advertiser or a competitor1
preparin# tests usually do not act intentionally wit& t&e o*-ective to promote t&e sales and
*usiness of an undertakin#)
5;

;)5); (&e use of test result in comparative advertisin#
Fesults of test comparisons can *e used durin# advertisin# activity) Menerally permitted to make
reference to test results in comparative advertisin#)
53
%or t&e use of t&e test in t&e advertisin#, in t&e
ma-ority of t&e countries, it is #enerally re.uired to o*tain t&e consent of t&e person/or#anisation
w&o carried out t&e test)
5A
If t&e advertiser refers to suc& comparative test, &e s&all *e &eld lia*le for complyin# wit& t&e rules
of comparative advertisin#)

;)J) +dvertisements claimin# superiority
2.=.1. &5eoretical approac5
+ertain ad1ertisements claim t5e superiorit4 or uni<ueness o0 t5e product, like Gt5e bestG and use o0
ot5er superlati1es. DIncluding implicit comparison ma4 >ell pose problems 0or ad1ertisers using
general statements suc5 Hbetter t5an all t5e restI etc. Jamous slogans suc5 as Hnot5ing acts 0aster
t5an 2nadinI ma4 >ell 5a1e to be used >it5 more discretion.A
""
C5at are legal conse<uences o0 t5is ad1ertisingK &>o opinions are possibleL
(i! &5is kind o0 be5a1iour in1ol1es # >it5out indicating an4 speci0ic competitor # per se a
comparison >it5 all ot5er products o0 t5e same nature a1ailable on t5e market.
(ii! &5is kind o0 be5a1iour does not in1ol1e a comparison.
It can be concluded t5at t5e admissibilit4 o0 ad1ertisements claiming superiorit4 can be subBect
eit5er to speci0ic rules on comparati1e ad1ertising (i! or to general rules, i.e., pro5ibition o0
misleading (ii!.
2.=.2. +omparati1e approac5
50
Menerally, it is not allowed to pu*lis& product tests w&ic& are not true and t&erefore appropriate to mislead t&e pu*lic)
Pu*lication is appropriate, provided t&at pu*lication would not result in t&e *reac& of some ot&er le#al o*li#ation or lia*ility,
e)#) *reac& of copyri#&t, *reac& of confidentiality, etc)
51
In 5wit:erland test comparisons are allowed to t&e same e4tent as comparative advertisin# is admissi*le) (&e 5wiss
statutory law does not contain a definition of comparative advertisin#, and t&e -urisdiction limited itself to a very superficial
attempt at definin# it' comparative advertisin# refers to competitors) (&us, t&e notion of comparative advertisin# is construed
*roadly, and entails ! contrary to "U law ! comparative tests made *y t&ird parties)
52
(&e +ustrian 5upreme Court &as ruled t&at t&e pu*lication of a test result *y a consumer protection or#ani:ation was not
an act of competition *ecause t&ere were no competitive interests)
53
However, ,el#ian law pro&i*its t&e reference to comparative test if suc& test was carried out *y consumers2 or#ani:ation)
5A
(&ere are different reasons for t&e need of suc& consent' 0i1 copyri#&t law 0Mermany, (&e Qet&erlands1, 0ii1 data*ase law
protection on t&e test results 0(&e Qet&erlands1, 0iii1 special statutory provision of advertisin# law re.uirin# suc& consent
0Hun#ary1)
55
Howard 3o&nson' Qew "U directive on comparative advertisin#
(olley6s Communications Law Kol 3 Qum*er ; HHC) JJ) p
3
.e0inition o0 +omparati1e 2d1ertising
(&ere is certain diver#ence amon# t&e -urisdictions of Mem*er 5tates as to w&et&er advertisements
claimin# superiority or uni.ueness of t&e product fall under t&e scope of comparative advertisin#, or
suc& advertisements are su*-ect to #eneral rules, i)e), t&e pro&i*ition of misleadin# advertisin#)
0i1 In t&e UE, suc& advertisements constitute a form of comparative advertisin#) In t&e
Qet&erlands suc& advertisements may constitute a form of comparative advertisin# if t&e
pu*lic will interpret t&e advertisement as a reference to one or more specific competitors
rat&er t&an every ot&er competitor in t&e market) In Italy, usin# superlatives in t&e
advertisin# is considered as a kind of indirect comparison wit& all market participants in
t&e specific field of #oods/services)
5J
0ii1 In contrast, in ot&er countries 0+ustria, ,el#ium, %rance, Mermany, Hun#ary, 5pain1
advertisements claimin# superiority or uni.ueness of t&e product ! >5ic5 do not include a
re0erence to an identi0iable competitor ! are considered to *e outside t&e definition of
comparative advertisin#, and t&ey are su*-ect to #eneral rules)
5I
However I &ave to add,
t&at in +ustria, an advertisement claimin# superiority was deemed to include a reference to
identifia*le competitor0s1, as t&e num*er of t&e advertiser6s competitors on t&e relevant
market was very small and could easily *e mana#ed) %urt&er, if an undertakin# &as a
dominant position in t&e market, ,el#ian -urisprudence considers t&e comparative
advertisin# as a comparison wit& suc& dominant undertakin#)
2.=.3. M4 o>n understanding
In m4 opinion t5e situation is not so di00icult as one can suppose at 0irst sig5t. &5e di00erence is not
larger t5an some legislation states t5at e1en suc5 ad1ertisements identi0ies t5e competitors, ot5ers
states t5at identi0ication is not automatical. It is clear, t5at identi0ication, i0 >e can speak about
identi0ication, 5appens in indirect >a4. 2s 4ou can see t5e second solution (2ustria, -elgium!,
di00ers 0rom t5e 0irst one (@(, t5e Nederlands!, because t5e <uali0ication is not automatic. &5e4 can
imagine easier t5at ad1ertisements claim t5e superiorit4 or uni<ueness o0 t5e product does not
contains identi0ication.
It seems to be desirable to appl4 t5e speci0ic rules on comparati1e ad1ertising i0 it can be identi0ied
>it5 >5ic5 competitor t5e comparison is made and suc5 speci0ic competitor can be regarded as t5e
inBured part4.
)n t5is base I suggest 0ollo>ing t5e main rule in .i1ination gi1en b4 t5e .irecti1e. Identi0ication o0
competitors or its product is important element o0 comparati1e ad1ertising. In m4 opinion it not
possible to decide generall4 >5et5er ad1ertisements claim t5e superiorit4 or uni<ueness o0 t5e
product is <uali0ied as a comparati1e ad1ertising or not. +ase b4 case 5a1e to control >5et5er t5e
<uestioned ad1ertising contains identi0ication or not. 2s 0ar as interpretation o0 identi0ication court
practices o0 Member States are 0are 0rom eac5 ot5er.
"?
5J
Under 5wiss law advertisin# e4a##eration, i)e) o*trusive praise t&at does not make sense, t&at is reco#ni:a*le as suc& and
t&erefore not taken seriously *y t&e pu*lic, and o*trusive e4a##eration or advertisin# resortin# to value -ud#ment do not fall
wit&in t&e am*it of t&e rules of comparative advertisin#) (&ey may &owever *e unlawful if t&ey amount to unnecessary
dispara#ement) (&is and ot&er national e4amples were mentioned at LIDC Con#ress &eld in ,udapest, ;BBA)
57
In particular, t&ey must not *e misleadin# and a##ressive tendencies s&ould *e avoided as well as #lo*al dispara#ements)
5C
&5e rules on comparati1e ad1ertising >ill indeed appl4 to ad1ertisements claiming superiorit4 or uni<ueness i0 t5ere are
onl4 1er4 0e> competitors and it is clear >5o is a00ected b4 a statement. Jor eEample, t5e 2ustrian Supreme +ourt came to
t5is conclusion in a case >5ere t5e ad1ertiser o0 a ne>spaper claimed to be H0aster and more currentI and t5ere >as onl4
one competing ne>spaper in t5e rele1ant market. )n t5e ot5er 5and, in Jrance, t5e use o0 t5e slogan HNo. 1 o0 ne>spaper
ad1ertisementsI >as not considered as a comparati1e ad1ertisement since t5e slogan did not re0er, directl4 or indirectl4, to
an4 competitor ne>spaper. 9o>e1er, t5e slogan >as considered to be un0air.
A
.e0inition o0 +omparati1e 2d1ertising
;)I) Comparative advertisin# wit&out comparison
In order 0or t5ere to be comparati1e ad1ertising >it5in t5e meaning o0 2rticle 2a. o0 .irecti1e, it is
su00icient 0or a representation to be made in an4 0orm >5ic5 re0ers, e1en b4 implication, to a
competitor or to t5e goods or ser1ices >5ic5 5e o00ers. &5ere0ore, i0 t5e competing products are
merel4 re0erred to >it5in t5e ad1ertising, it in itsel0 constitutes an instance o0 comparati1e
ad1ertising and it is irrele1ant >5et5er an actual comparison is made bet>een t5e goods and
ser1ices o00ered b4 t5e ad1ertiser and t5ose o0 a competitor.
"6
In m4 opinion t5e name Acomparati1e ad1ertisingA 5as some misleading nature. &5ere are t>o kinds
o0 interpretation o0 t5e comparati1e ad1ertisingL a narro>er and a larger one.
0i1 &5e narro>er interpretation o0 t5is term is based on a real comparison. 9istoricall4 t5is
t4pe o0 interpretation is older. Its original 1ersion co1ered comparison bet>een onl4
products. E1en in a book, >5ic5 >as publis5ed in 1663, >e can meet >it5 suc5 a narro>er
meaningL DJor instance, until recentl4 t5e 2ustrian courts ruled in1alid all 0orm o0
comparati1e ad1ertising (t5at is ad1ertising >5ic5 states t5at t5e ad1ertised product is
better t5an anot5er named product!(3= p!M+omparati1e ad1ertising (>5ereb4 one
product is compared 0a1ourabl4 to anot5er named product! general is illegal in :erman4
(67 p! M+omparati1e ad1ertising (stating t5at t5e ad1ertised brand is better t5an ot5er
named products! >as banned 0or se1eral 4ears in 2ustria until t5e European +ourt o0
9uman 'ig5ts ruled t5at commercial speec5 is entitled to some protection (2?7 p!.A
=0
Similarl4 in 9ungarian legal literature (atalin MeNe4 states t5at Dt5e central idea o0
comparati1e ad1ertising is t5at <ualit4 or ot5er important 0eature o0 a product or ser1ice is
compared >it5 an ot5er product b4 >a4 o0 identi0ication o0 t5e ot5er product or 0irm.A
=1
I
am not sure >5et5er t5is Dclosel4 interpreted narro>erA de0inition co1ers or not ser1ices
and comparison bet>een competitors. No>ada4s looks like clear, t5at it is comparati1e
ad1ertising, i0 t>o competitors, t>o products and8or t>o ser1ices are compared b4 t5e
ad1ertisements. $er5aps t5e original 1ersion o0 de0inition can be interpreted analogous
>a4, or t5e de0inition 5as c5anged, its scope o0 application became a bit larger.
(ii! &5e >ider interpretation o0 t5e term Acomparati1e ad1ertisingA co1ers ot5er O not
comparati1e O be5a1iours, too. &5is is somet5ing brand ne>. I am sure t5at is more t5an
interpretation <uestion. &5is result, suc5 a >ide interpretation can not be reac5ed b4 >a4
o0 interpretation. &5ere is a ne> de0inition >5ic5 >as created b4 t5e .irecti1e.
;)C) Conclusions on definition
&5ere are se1eral kinds o0 HcomparisonsI t5at are deemed outside t5e de0inition o0 comparati1e
ad1ertising, and at t5e same time t5ere are comparati1e ad1ertising >it5out comparisons. -oarders
are not clear enoug5. &5ere is a real danger t5at court practices interpret di00erent >a4s t5ese
boarders in Member States. &5is risk is against insider market concept. It >ould be use0ul to dra>
borderlines b4 a ne> .irecti1e.
M4 0eeling is, t5at t5ere is a di1ergence bet>een t5e de0inition o0 comparati1e ad1ertising and its
criteria. Some re<uirements are 1er4 clear >a4 related to traditional comparisons, some ot5er
criteriaAs scope o0 application is borderL co1ers not onl4 comparisons. Could be use0ul to t5inking
on it.
59
+#112866, (os&i*a, para 31
60
Press Law and Practice 8 + Comparative 5tudy of Press %reedom in "uropean and 9t&er Democracies
Pu*lis&ed *y United Qations "ducational, 5cientific and Cultural 9r#anisation, London HH3)
J
Eas:ainO dr Me:ei Eatalin' %o#yas:tNi -o#ok, Hv#9rac Lap! Os ELnyvkiadN ,udapest HHC) 3H) p
5
.e0inition o0 +omparati1e 2d1ertising
'. -#narian interpretation o$ t.e p.rase /comparative advertisin/
3.1. .e0inition
(&e definition /5ec) ; o of t&e +ct/ on comparative advertisin#, t&ou#& not a literal translation, is in
conformity wit& t&e definition in +rt) 3 0a1 of t&e Directive, namely' =+omparati1e ad1ertising'
advertisin# t&at directly or indirectly allows t&e reco#nition of anot&er enterprise w&ic& en#a#es in
t&e same or a similar activity as t&e advertiser, or of #oods manufactures, sold or introduced *y suc&
ot&er enterprise for t&e same or similar purpose as t&ose featurin# in t&e advertisin#)?
(&ou#& t&e wordin# of t&e +ct is not literally identical 0e)#) t&e terms =discredit? and =deni#rate?
do not fi#ure in it1 t&e su*-ect matter of t&e .uoted provisions is identical to t&at of t&e Directive)
3.1.1. Identification
(&e +ct does not provide a distinction on direct or indirect comparative advertisements) +s a result,
t&ere is no difference *etween direct or indirect comparative advertisement)
J;
3);) Hun#arian solutions on uncertain pro*lems of comparison
3.2.1. 2bstract comparison
&5e 9ungarian legal practice makes a di00erence bet>een a comparati1e ad1ertisement and an
ad1ertisement containing a comparison (>5ere no competitor can be identi0ied!.
Hun#arian le#al literature 0sc&olarly opinion1
J3
makes a distinction *etween so!called polarised and
unpolari:ed advertisin# on t&e *asis of t&e circumstance t&at in t&e former specific competitor0s1 are
identifia*le, w&ile in t&e later t&e comparison #enerally refers to t&e competin# products availa*le
on t&e market)
3.2.2. Jictious comparison
Hun#arian advertisin# law specifies t&at it is for*idden to make any advertisement pu*lic,
purportin# or alludin# a true option, t&at contains a comparison wit& a fictitious product or
undertakin#, wit& a product t&at is not availa*le on t&e market, wit& a product or undertakin# t&at
cannot *e clearly identified, or wit& a product or undertakin# not of similar nature)
JA
,efore t&e
pro&i*ition came into in force t&ere were precedents of fictious comparisons in Hun#arian case law)
(&e power of a certain new was&in# powder was compared to cleanin# capacity of so called
Dtraditional6 was&in# powders) (&is met&od was relatively fre.uently used in t&e area of toot&!paste
62
5ome e4amples from t&e Hun#arian le#al practice on advertisin#' Copies &avin# lower .uality t&an t&e ori#inal / L"M9
*ricks/ advertised as =compati*les= 05upreme Court, ,H HH5/I/3HA1) In t&e procedures CILLI( Cream 0Metropolitan Court
Qo) ;)E)3B J;A/;BB31 and CI% CF"+M 0Competition Council, Qo) 5J/;BB;1 comparative advertisements relatin# to li.uid
sourin# products were en#a#ed as a result of a =war of advertisements? *etween owners of t&e two products) (&e distri*utor
of t&e CILLI( product was condemned for lack of sufficient information in t&e (K advertisements, since &e simply stated t&e
superiority of &is product, *ut t&e properties of t&e product were fully e4plained only in t&e instructions for use) (&e
distri*utor of t&e CI% product was condemned for statin# in (K advertisements t&at &is product is *etter t&en CILLI(, as t&e
latter &arms o*-ects in t&e kitc&en and t&e *at&room) In t&e 5"Q5+(I9Q+L" case, prices of imitatin# products 0perfumes1
were compared to t&ose of famous *randed products, wit&out informin# t&e consumers on t&e inferior .uality of t&e former
05upreme Court, K%Y HH5, C;1) In t&e 5"Q5+(I9Q+L" case t&e courts indirectly protected t&e reputed mark CH+Q"L
too, not only t&e consumers)
63
+ut&or is Ein#a P$:m$ndi in Competition law audited *y (am$s 5$rkL:y, HKM9rac Lap! Os ELnvykiadN, ,udapest ;BB)
5I p
64
5ec) I/C of +ct LKIII of HHI on economic advertisin# activity
J
.e0inition o0 +omparati1e 2d1ertising
advertisin#) (oday it is ille#al) + possi*le result of t&e le#al pro&i*ition #rowin# of tension *etween
competitors, *ecause comparison must *e done wit& a concrete competitor or its concrete product)
J5
3.2.. D$luralA ad1ertising
&5oug5 e1en t5e 9ungarian de0inition o0 comparati1e ad1ertising mention one competitor or one
competitorAs products, >e can not 0ind suc5 opinion t5at comparison >it5 more competitors or
more competitorsA products is outside o0 t5e scope o0 comparati1e ad1ertising.
66
3);)5) Comparison made *y t&ird parties
Product testin# is done *y consumer or#anisations and/or private or pu*lic institutions are less
fre.uently used in Hun#ary) (&ere are no le#al restrictions on t&ird parties carryin# out test
comparisons on products) 5imilarly, t&ere are no restrictions on pu*lis&in# of t&ese tests) (&is kind
of activity is outside of advertisin#)
(&e results of t&e testin# can *e used in advertisin#) (&e commercial aim makes t&e difference
*etween pu*lis&in# tests and advertisin# usin# test results) +dvertiser tries to #et new markets wit&
usin# results made *y t&ird parties) Comparison *y a market!interested person usin# t&e o*-ective
test can *e .ualified as a comparative advertisin#)
3.2.=. 2d1ertisements claiming superiorit4
Courts and t&e Competition Council penali:ed advertisin#s like Dt&e *est6
JI
, or advertised a product
as DQo) I)6
JC
, a service as Dmost punctual and .uickest6, t&e price as Dun*eata*le6 or c&eapest etc)
until now *y referrin# to t&e #eneral rules of misleadin# advertisin#)
JH
5ometimes similar *e&aviour
is .ualified as misleadin# comparative advertisin#)
+dvertiser &as t&e ri#&t 0t&is is its o*li#ation, too1 to evidence statements of its advertisements
claimin# superiority) 5cientific institutions are relatively fre.uently asked in suc& .uestions) 9n t&e
*ase of Hun#arian court practice I can state, t&at evidencin# are most of t&e cases unsuccessful
w&en advertisements used Zmost >? p&rase)
IB
In t&e procedure H"+D [ 5H9ULD"F5
I
s&ampoos a#ainst dandruff were compared usin# t&e terms =t&e *est, t&e most effective s&ampoo
a#ainst dandruff?) +n interpretation relatin# to t&e #oods was not necessary in any of t&e .uoted
cases)
I;
III.T.e concept o$ t.e E0 Commission/s Proposed Directive on t.e mis!eadin nat#re o$ an
advertisement
)n Pune 1?, 2003, t5e E@ +ommission presented a Proposal for a Directive concernin# unfair
*usiness!to!consumer commercial practices in t&e Internal Market and amendin# directives
65
Pri*ula H3 p
66
+s I &ave mentioned in 3);)) connected to so!called polari:ed and unpolari:ed advertisin# 6specific competitor0s1 are
identifia*le6)
JI
D+Q9Q" kefir was advertised as =t&e *est? ! Metropolitan Court,K%Y HHJ, 35A7
68
DF"H"F *eer was advertised as =Qo) I)? ! Competition Council,K%Y HH5, HA
JH
Considered as an advertisement containin# a comparison, t&e competition aut&ority found t&e slo#an Dit remo1es easil4 t5e
stain and scale >5ic5 ot5er products lea1e6 misleadin# *ecause t&e product 8 accordin# to t&e instruction of use ! could not
*e used on all surfaces in t&e *at&room and kitc&en)
70
(&e Dmost >6 p&rase means #enerally more t&an evidenced *y advertiser) %)e) K-!;I/;BBB
71
Competition Council, Qo) A/;BB3
72
(&e referred cases are availa*le on t&e Home pa#e of t&e Competition 9ffice under www)#v (&e referred cases are
availa*le on t&e Home pa#e of t&e Competition 9ffice under www)#v&)&u)&)&u)
I
.e0inition o0 +omparati1e 2d1ertising
CA/A5B/""C, HI/I/"C and HC/;I/"C (t5e @n0air +ommercial $ractices .irecti1e!
73
(5ereina0terL
t5e G$roposed .irecti1eG!. 'ecital ("! o0 t5is $roposed .irecti1e indicates t5at it approEimates t5e
la>s o0 t5e Member States on un0air commercial practices (including un0air ad1ertising! >5ic5
5arm consumersQ economic interests. In line >it5 t5is, t5e $roposed .irecti1e sets 0ort5 t5at it
neit5er co1ers nor a00ects t5e national la>s on un0air commercial practices >5ic5 5arm onl4
competitorsQ economic interests or >5ic5 relate to a transaction bet>een traders. Jurt5er, it does
not address t5e pro1isions o0 .irecti1e ?8"08EE+ on ad1ertising (including comparati1e
ad1ertising! >5ic5 is misleading to businesses, but not misleading 0or consumers.
$ursuant to 2rticle 1 (! o0 t5e $roposed .irecti1e, 2rticle 3a o0 t5e .irecti1e s5all be replaced
b4 a partiall4 ne> list o0 conditions >5ic5 eac5 instance o0 comparati1e ad1ertisement s5all compl4
>it5. &5e +ommissionAs rational 0or t5e ne> proposal states t5at, 0or t5e sake o0 clarit4 and
simplicit4, t5e $roposed .irecti1e incorporates t5e misleading ad1ertising directi1eAs -2+
pro1isions (i.e., pro1isions dealing >it5 ad1ertising reac5ing or directed at consumers! and limits
t5e scope o0 t5e eEisting .irecti1e to business#to#business ad1ertising (i.e., pro1isions dealing >it5
ad1ertising reac5ing or directed at businesses! and comparati1e ad1ertising >5ic5 ma4 5arm a
competitor (b4 denigration, 0or eEample! but >5ere t5ere is no consumer detriment (page ?!. &5us,
as a result o0 t5e amendment, subsections (a! and (d! >ill be deleted 0rom t5e .irecti1e.
I do not agree >it5 t5e concept. I >ould like mention t5ree reasons.
(i! )ne can not separate eEactl4 t5e aspects o0 5arm to consumer and 5arm to competitor.
&5ere0ore, application o0 t5e .irecti1e >ill di00icoult in t5e practice.
(ii! Jor t5e purposes o0 t5e $roposed .irecti1e, in compliance >it5 t5e ci1il la> de0inition in E@
legislation, consumer means an4 natural person >5o, in commercial practices (co1ered b4 t5e
$roposed .irecti1e!, is acting 0or purposes >5ic5 are outside 5is trade, business or pro0ession. In
9ungar4 t5e concept o0 consumer in competition la> is not restricted to natural persons. &5ere0ore
in 9ungar4 >e 5a1e to count >it5 special eEtra problems.
0iii1 5olution of t&e Proposed Directive misleadin#ly su##ests t&at only two kinds of interest e4ist,
i)e) interest of consumers and interest of competitors) 6+ #eneral policy issue is w&et&er
comparative advertisin# s&ould *e allowed or pro&i*ited, t&is involves a *alancin# of various
interests) 9n t&e one &and, suc& advertisin# would en&ance consumer knowled#e, *ut on t&e ot&er
we may not wis& companies to #ain a free ride on t&e *ack of someone else6s success) (&e political
*alance must *e struck *etween t&e interests of *rand owners and t&e interests of t&e market
economy)6
IA
In 3);) point we s&owed, t&at t&e law &as to protect even ri#&t&olders6 interest) (&ey
are symilarly &armed *y comparative advertisin# as consumers) Proposed Directive for#ets
protectin# interest of t&is #roup of persons) Per&aps "uropean le#islator t&ou#t t&at t&e ori#inal
Directive6s task to protect *ot& competitors *ot& ri#&t&olders) In my opinion t&is two kinds of
interest can not *e protected on t&e same way) Interests of ri#&olders are closer to interest of
consumers, t&an to interests of competitors, even t&at t&ese two positions sometimes *elon# to one
person)
S#mmar1
(&is study tried to s&ow t&e economic function of t&e comparative advertisin#, its risks, interests to
*e protected and t&e main features of its re#ulation)
(&e main part was a*out t&e definition of comparative advertisin#) In le#al literature t&e
re.uirements of comparative advertisin# is t&e most important pro*lem, t&e definition of
comparative advertisin# looks like a second ran#e .uestion) (&is topic #enerally is missin# from
73
+)M (2003! 3"= 0inal, 20038013 (+).!
IA
Fod#er, ,erry 8 MacCulloc&, +n#us' Competition Law and Policy in t&e "uropean Community and United Ein#dom,
Cavendis& Pu*lis&in# Limited, London 5idney HHH)
C
.e0inition o0 +omparati1e 2d1ertising
*ooks and articles) In my opinion it is important to determine t&e comparative advertisin# firstly
*ecause only t&is type of comparison can *e re#arded as lawful in certain circumstances, secondly
*ecause in t&is case le#al re.uirements must *een followed)
+ll t&e "U countries &ave implemented t&e Directive in t&eir le#al systems, wit& essentially
identical re.uirements set fort& in t&e Directive) +s far as t&e definitions of t&e comparative
advertisin# is concerned, t&e situation less &omo#eneous) It was t&e main reason to do some
researc&es on t&is topic)
In my opinion t&e name 6comparative advertisin#6 &as some misleadin# nature) (&eoretically t&ere
are two kinds of interpretation of t&e comparative advertisin#' a narrower and a lar#er one) (&e
narrower interpretation of t&is term is *ased on a real comparison) (wo competitors, two products
and/or two services are compared *y t&e advertisements) (&e lar#er interpretation of t&e term
6comparative advertisin#6 covers ot&er 8 not comparative 8 *e&aviours, too) Identification of a
person wit& &i#& reputation, or a famous product, a well!known service, a re#istered trademark, or
trade name must *e .ualified as a comparative advertisin# on t&e *ase of t&e definition #iven *y t&e
Directive) In t&is study I &ave tried to draw t&e attention to a c&an#e) Definition of comparative
advertisin# &as c&an#ed) (&is c&an#e &as &appened in t&e le#islation and 8 partly 8 in t&e court
practice, *ut t&e ori#inal definition is livin# in our mentality) 9ur first reaction on comparative
advertisin# is t&e same as decades a#o was) Picture of comparative advertisin# emer#in# in our
ideas is a picture of comparison) It is not totally *ad, *ecause most of comparative advertisements
contain comparisons) ,ut our first idea wron#, *ecause comparative advertisin# is more t&an
comparison, in certain cases comparative advertisin# e4ists even wit&out comparison) "ven an
advertisin# wit&out direct comparison can *e &armful if it e4ploits t&e renown of an ot&er person or
ot&er persons)
Definition *ecame wider *y "C le#islation) + lar#er circle of situations accepted as comparative
advertisin# *y t&e court practice of Mem*er 5tates) Comparisons *etween more t&an two
competitors or t&eir products, usin# test results made *y t&ird parties in advertisements are #ood
e4amples)
(&is process created some uncertainty) <&et&er a*stract comparison, system comparison, fictious
comparison can *e or must *e .ualified as comparative advertisin#X If t&e answere is Dyes6, w&et&er
le#al criteria must *e t&e same in t&ese cases, or we need new re.uirementsX How t&e
advertisements claimin# superiority can .ualaifiedX
%or answerin# t&ese .uestions important to analyse difference *etween re.uirements for
comparative advertisin# and re.uirement for advertisin# in #eneral)
0i1 If t&e le#al system is a*le to protect all of attac&ed persons6 interests usin# traditional rules
connected to t&e misleadin# advertisin# or more #enerally connected to unfair competition, we need
not create new cate#ories, and new rules)
0ii1 ,ut if traditional le#al tools are not efficient enou#&, can *e usefull widenin# t&e definition of
comparative advertisin#) In t&is way le#al pra4is #ets possi*ility to use special tools a#ainst certain
advertisers)
0iii1 Le#al pra4is usually tries to apply e4istin# le#al tools to solve new pro*lems) 5ometimes it is
impossi*le, new criteria, new pro&i*itions must *e created)
(&is study s&owed a lot of e4amples w&at kind of answeres are #iven *y "C and Mem*er 5tates,
&ow t&ey try to solve t&eir new pro*lems) C&oosen solutions *y Mem*er 5tates are different from
eac& ot&er) "4istin# situation is contrary to t&e ori#inal aim of "C) %or ensurin# a real inside market
would *e useful to find one answere, or similar solutions) Instead of t&is, Commission is t&inkin# on
a new, consumer!protection oriented, additional le#islation) (&ere is no real reason w&y &as t&e
consumer oriented le#islation *ecome ston#er, t&an t&e interpretation *ased on t&e free movement
H
.e0inition o0 +omparati1e 2d1ertising
of #oods and services) +pplication of planned rules will *e difficoult) Hi#&er level uncertainty and
more diffused court practice will *e t&e result of t&e planned new Directive)
I &ope le#al answeres *ecome clear in a certain period) <e &ave a lot to do for t&is) <e &ave to
analyse &ow different met&ods are used in Mem*er 5tates, w&ic& solution is t&e most efficient)
Usin# t&e so called D*est prectice6 tec&nic, "C is a*le to &elp Mem*er 5tates to introduce t&e most
efficient met&od into t&eir le#islation)
2ib!iorap.1
+dvertisin# and t&e consumer wit&in t&e "uropean Community, "C Consumer Information
pro#ramme
Eestrel Communications, London HH3)
,ac&er Kilmos' + verseny-o# Os a: Lss:e&asonlRtN rekl$m
Ma:das$# Os 3o# HHC) J)
,ac&er Kilmos' ,RrNi #yakorlat a tis:tessO#telen verseny kLrO*Pl
3o#tudom$nyi EL:lLny HHJ) >AJI
Dauses +) Manfred' +: "urNpai ,RrNs$# -o##yakorlata a kL:Ls piaci fo#yas:tNvOdelem Os
versenys:a*ads$# kOrdOsei*en)
3o#tudom$nyi EL:lLny HHJ) H) >
3o&nson, Howard' Qew "U directive on comparative advertisin#
(olley6s Communications Law Kol 3 Qum*er ; HHC) JJ!JH p
Eas:ainO dr Me:ei Eatalin' %o#yas:tNi -o#ok
Hv#9rac Lap! Os ELnyvkiadN ,udapest HHC)
Eas:ainO dr Me:ei Eatalin 8 Miskolc:i ,odn$r POter' EO:ikLnyv a verseny-o#rNl
HKM9rac, ,udapest, HHI)
Miller!Harvey!Parry' Consumer and (radin# Law
94ford University Press, 94ford HHC)
Miskolc:i ,odn$r POter' + versenytLrvOny ma#yar$:ata
E3E!Eers:Lv ,udapest ;BB;)
Miskolc:i ,odn$r POter' Kerseny-o#
UniN EiadN ,udapest ;BBA)
9&ly, +ns#ar 8 5pence, Mic&ael' (&e Law of Comparative +dvertisin#
94ford 8 Portland ore#on ;BBB)
P$:m$ndi Ein#a' + #a:das$#i rekl$mtevOkenysO#rPl, in Kerseny-o# s:erk) 5$rkL:y (am$s,
HKM9rac Lap! Os ELnvykiadN, ,udapest ;BB)
Pri*ula L$s:lN' + rekl$mtevOkenysO# Os a rekl$ms:er:PdOsek &a:ai -o#i s:a*$lyo:$sa
P&D diss:ert$ciN De*recen ;BB3), kO:irat
Fod#er, ,erry 8 MacCulloc&, +n#us' Competition Law and Policy in t&e "uropean Community and
United Ein#dom, Cavendis& Pu*lis&in# Limited, London 5idney HHH)
Kida 5$ndor' + fo#yas:tN verseny-o#i vOdelme a me#tOves:tOssel s:em*en
Ma#yar 3o# ;BBB) JJI>)
Kida 5$ndor' +: Lss:e&asonlRtN rekl$m a: an#ol -o#rends:erS ors:$#ok*an
ETl#a:das$#, 3o#i MellOklet HH;/B)
KR#& 3N:sef %erenc' +: Lss:e&asonlRtN rekl$m s:a*$lyo:$sa -o#kL:elRtOsi kLtele:ettsO#Tnk
s:ems:L#O*Pl
ETl#a:das$#, 3o#i MellOklet HHJ/3)
KLrLs Imre' Fekl$ms:a*$lyok a versenytLrvOny*en
3o#tudom$nyi EL:lLny HHI) ) A53!AJC p
;B
.e0inition o0 +omparati1e 2d1ertising
KLrLs Imre' +: eurNpai verseny-o#ok kO:ikLnyve
(FI9FM Eft), ,udapest HH)
KLrLs Imre' +: eurNpai verseny-o#ok kO:ikLnyve ;) kiad$s
Lo#od ,t), ,udapest HHJ)
;
.e0inition o0 +omparati1e 2d1ertising
;;