Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation ((SEELR,volume 5))

  • 1188 Accesses

Abstract

German, English and Italian law have distinctly different backgrounds both in terms of unfair commercial practices regulations and in terms of the benchmarks that were applied prior to the introduction of the average consumer benchmark by the CJEU. Courts and enforcement authorities in all three Member States now apply the average consumer benchmark as prescribed by the CJEU. It is interesting to note, however, that in none of the three Member States does the application of the benchmark reflect the same high expectations as the CJEUs case law with regard to the behaviour of the average consumer. In this sense, EU-conform application of the benchmark has not—yet—been achieved. There are also still considerable differences in the application of the benchmarks between the three Member States, e.g., in terms of the degree to which the average consumer is to be regarded as vulnerable and in terms of the degree to which the target group and vulnerable group benchmarks are applied.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See, for example, BGH 23 October 1956, I ZR 76/54, GRUR 1957, 128—Steinhäger.

  2. 2.

    BGH 1 October 1971, I ZR 51/70, GRUR 1972, 129—Der meistgekaufte der Welt.

  3. 3.

    See, for example, BGH 20 October 1988, I ZR 238/87, GRUR 1991, 546—aus Altpapier.

  4. 4.

    See, for example, G Schricker, ‘Die Bekämpfung der irreführenden Werbung in dem Mitgliedstaaten der EG’ (1990) GRUR Int. 118–119 and T Lettl, ‘Der lauterkreisrechtliche Schutz vor irreführender Werbung in Europa’ (2004) GRUR Int. 90.

  5. 5.

    See, for example, with respect to the tort of passing-off: Reckitt & Coleman Products Ltd v Borden Inc and others [1990] 1 WLR 491; and for the Trade Descriptions Act 1968: Burleigh v Van den Berghs and Jurgens Ltd [1987] BTLC 337.

  6. 6.

    See, for example, Doble v David Greig Ltd [1972] 1 W.L.R. 703, applying the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, and Director General of Fair Trading v Tobyward Ltd [1989] WLR 517, applying the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988. Note that there are no examples of protection of specific vulnerable groups in English law.

  7. 7.

    Tribunale di Torino, Riv. Dir. Comm. 1915 II, 166 and Corte di Cassazione 17 April 1962, GRUR Int. 1964, 515 ( Motta Alemagna).

  8. 8.

    See, for example, G Schricker, Italien, (Munich, Beck, 1965) 204.

  9. 9.

    See, in particular, BGH 20 October 1999, I ZR 167/97, WRP 2000, 517—Orient-Teppichmuster.

  10. 10.

    BGH 20 December 2001, I ZR 215/98, WRP 2002, 977—Scanner-Werbung.

  11. 11.

    Lewin v Purity Soft Drinks plc [2005] A.C.D. 81.

  12. 12.

    Department of Trade and Industry 2005, p. 30.

  13. 13.

    Office of Fair Trading v Purely Creative Ltd Industries [2011] EWHC 106.

  14. 14.

    Office of Fair Trading v Ashbourne Management Services [2011] EWHC 1237.

  15. 15.

    See Tar Lazio, Sez. I, 19 May 2010, No. 12364 ( Accord Italia——Carta Auchan) and Tar Lazio, Sez. I, 29 March 2010, No. 4931 ( Wind Absolute Tariffa).

  16. 16.

    In English law there is the exception of Lewin v Purity Soft Drinks plc [2005] A.C.D. 81, in which the stricter case law of the CJEU in relation to labelling is followed.

  17. 17.

    See, for example, BGH 6 April 2006, I ZR 125/03, GRUR 2006, 776—Werbung für Klingeltöne and BGH 22 September 2005, I ZR 83/03, GRUR 2006, 161—Zeitschrift mit Sonnenbrille.

  18. 18.

    See, for example, BGH 26 April 2001, I ZR 314/98, GRUR 2001, 1178—Gewinn-Zertifikat and OLG Düsseldorf 9 September 2008, I-20 U 123/08, WRP 2009, 98—Macht über die Karten.

  19. 19.

    Office of Fair Trading v Purely Creative Ltd Industries [2011] EWHC 106.

  20. 20.

    CJEU 16 July 1998, Case C-210/96, ECR 1998, p. I–4657 ( Gut Springenheide); CJEU 16 September 1999, Case C-220/98, ECR 2000, p. I–117 ( Lifting).

  21. 21.

    See, for example, S Leible, ‘Anmerkung zu EuGH vom 16.7.1998 (Gut Springenheide)’ (1998) Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 529.

  22. 22.

    Tar Lazio, Sez. I, 11 January 2006, No. 1372 ( Sigarette Lights).

References

  • Leible, S, ‘Anmerkung zu EuGH vom 16.7.1998 (Gut Springenheide)’ (1998) Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lettl, T ‘Der lauterkreisrechtliche Schutz vor irreführender Werbung in Europa’ (2004) GRUR Int. 85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schricker, G, ‘Die Bekämpfung der irreführenden Werbung in dem Mitgliedstaaten der EG’ (1990) GRUR Int. 112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schricker, G, Italien, (Munich, Beck, 1965).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bram B. Duivenvoorde .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Duivenvoorde, B. (2015). Comparison. In: The Consumer Benchmarks in the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, vol 5. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13924-1_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics