Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 1, Article 3 Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 4, Article 21

If a seller advertises in a way in which the consumer could get the impression that the product is the original, this is misleading pursuant to article 3 and article 22 of the Danish Commercial Practice Act.

Relevance: Applies and helps fill out legislation relating to comparative and misleading advertising and misuse of other trademarks.

Seller A advertised his bikes as ‘Christiania Cykler’ which was very close to the known brand ‘Christiania Bikes’ - a protected brand (one in Danish and one in English). The seller’s bikes had the same features as the original brand. ‘Christiania’ is the name of a free town in Denmark and the bike has a big box on the front of the bike with room for kids, groceries etc.

The case mainly focused on whether the name Christiania Bike was protected, but it also took up the issue of whether the advertising was misleading.

The commercial practice was misleading with reference to the Danish Commercial Practice Act article 3 and article 22.

Hele teksten: Hele teksten

Ingen resultater

Ingen resultater

The Court upheld the First Instance Court’s judgement that supported the original seller of Christiania Bikes, meaning seller A had to pay compensation to seller B.

Through this judgement, the Court helps set the standard for advertisement that uses a competing brand to advertise one’s own product – in this case by causing confusion in regard to the product’s authenticity. It does not put forward arguments which are based on any implemented Directive, however, the problem of the case relates to article 3, Directive 2006/144 regarding misleading commercial practice.