Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: H.D. 288/2009 and 289/2009 (or U 2012.1089H)
    • Member State: Denmark
    • Common Name:H.D. 288/2009 and 289/2009 (or U 2012.1089H)
    • Decision type: Supreme court decision
    • Decision date: 06/01/2012
    • Court: The Danish Supreme Court
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff: Danske Spil A/S (gaming operator)
    • Defendant: Ladbrokes Betting and Gaming Ltd.(gaming operator)
    • Keywords: advertisement, comparative advertising, confusion, false impression, unfair competition
  • Directive Articles
    Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1
  • Headnote
    Discrediting a competitor can constitute a misleading commercial practice.
  • Facts
    Both defendant and plaintiff are large gaming operators.

    From May to September 2008, the defendant carried on a publicity campaign using the word "Danske Spil" in a comparable commercial. More specifically, the defendant used the slogan "Danske spil, engelske odds" (Danske Spil (the plaintiff's name), English odds).

    Later, the plaintiff carried out a television marketing campaign using pictures which brought along negative associations with foreign games. For example, the campaign contained speak and not very flattering pictures of a Philippine bookmaker and a cigar-smoking general manger of a casino with associations to the Italian mafia.

    The defendant stated that the plaintiff tried to give the impression that foreign gaming operators deceive their players and use mafia methods.  
  • Legal issue
    The Supreme Court decided that both the defendant's and the plaintiff’s publicity campaigns had violated Sections 1, 3 and 5 of the Danish Marketing Practices Act.

    The Court, however, ruled that neither the defendant nor the plaintiff were to pay compensation. This was mainly because the parties had violated the Danish Marketing Practices Act at the same gross level and since none of them had proven to have suffered a greater loss than the opponent.  
  • Decision

    Does discrediting a competitor, constitute a misleading commercial practice?

    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result
    The plaintiff's and the defendant's claims were partly denied, partly granted.
Feedback

Use the form below to share your comments and feedback on our new website