At first instance, the High Court held -LRB-[2006] EWCA Civ 1656, [2006] All ER (D) 49 (Dec)-RRB- that the use of the O2 bubble
marks by 3 was a breach of O2's rights under Art 5 of the Trade Marks Directive 89/104 / EEC (TMD), but said that the advertisement complied with the terms of the Comparative Advertising Directive 97 / 55 / EC (CAD) and so Art 6 (1) of the TMD, which provides a defence for «indications concerning the kind, quality and quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, the time of production of goods of rendering of the service or other characteristics of the goods or services... provided [they are used] in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters» which meant there was no infringe
marks by 3 was a breach of O2's rights under Art 5 of the
Trade Marks Directive 89/104 / EEC (TMD), but said that the advertisement complied with the terms of the Comparative Advertising Directive 97 / 55 / EC (CAD) and so Art 6 (1) of the TMD, which provides a defence for «indications concerning the kind, quality and quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, the time of production of goods of rendering of the service or other characteristics of the goods or services... provided [they are used] in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters» which meant there was no infringe
Marks Directive 89/104 / EEC (TMD), but said that the advertisement complied with the terms of the Comparative Advertising Directive 97 / 55 / EC (CAD) and so Art 6 (1) of the TMD, which provides a defence for «indications
concerning the kind, quality and quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, the time of production of goods of rendering of the service or other characteristics of the goods or services... provided [they are used] in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters» which meant there was no
infringement.
In recent years, Jill has increasingly worked on copyright and
trade mark matters relating to new media products and Internet services, including the drafting of website agreements and other Internet related contracts, the selection and protection of domain names, advising on the
infringement of copyrights and
trade marks on the internet and privacy law
concerns.
The action was appealed to the French supreme court (the Cour de Cassation), who stayed proceedings and referred three questions to the ECJ
concerning whether a
trade mark proprietor can invoke
trade mark infringement principles to prevent the sale of licensed goods to discount stores where the licence agreement prohibits such sales and the further commercialisation of the goods.