O2 v Hutchison 3G comparative advertising:European trade mark law beyond compare?

Legislation: Directive 89/104 on trade marks art.5 Directive 84/450 on misleading advertising Directive 97/55 amending Directive 84/450 concerning misleading advertising so as to include comparative advertising Case: O2 Holdings Ltd v Hutchison 3G UK Ltd (C-533/06) [2008] E.C.R. I-4231 (ECJ (1st Chamber)) *Comms. L. 155 Long, long ago a trade mark allowed a craftsman to be identified and held accountable for shoddy goods. Today in the era of the ‘Lovemark,’1 due to extensive advertising hopes and aspirations a lifestyle can be purchased with a brand. For many products a trademark is no longer merely a badge of origin but has a commercial value of its own. Through advertising an emotional attachment is created in the heart of the consumer for particular brands. Brand owners are determined that the value of this attachment be preserved and protected against any encroachment into the aura that has been painstakingly created. Comparative advertising, the allusive use of a mark, is seen by the owners of such emotive brands as likely to jeopardise the character of the brand that they have so carefully nurtured. As they have invested so heavily in creating their concept these owners want to control its use by others. There is an issue however as to how far this control ought to extend when the image is used in the marketing of a rival's goods or services.

Employee negative emotions in supervisory relationships : an attachment theory perspective

Relationships with supervisors are a major source of negative emotions at work, but little is known about why this is so. The aim of the research was to use attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969, 1973; 1980) as a framework for investigating the nature and causes of employee negative emotional experiences, in the context of their supervisory relationships. The research was conducted in three stages. In Stage 1 two studies were conducted to develop a measure of employee perceptions of supervisor caregiving (SCS). Results indicated that the 20-item scale had good reliability and validity. Stage 2 required participants (N=183) to complete a questionnaire that was designed to examine the roles of supervisor caregiving and working models (specific and global) in determining cognitive and emotional responses to hypothetical supervisor behaviours. The results provided partial support for an Independent Effects Model. Supervisor caregiving predicted specific anxiety and avoidance. In tum, both dimensions of attachment predicted negative emotions, but this relationship was mediated by event interpretation only in the case of avoidance. Global models made a smaller but significant contribution to negative emotions overall. There was no support for an interaction effect between specific and global models in determining event interpretation. In stage 3 a sub-sample of questionnaire respondents (N=24) were interviewed about 'real-life' caregiving and negative emotional experiences in their supervisory relationships. Secure individuals experienced supervisors as consistently warm, available, and responsive. They reported few negative events or emotions. Individuals with insecure specific working models experienced rejecting or inconsistent supervisor caregiving. They were sensitised to trust and closeness issues in their relationships, and reported negative events and emotions underpinned by these themes. Overall, results broadly supported attachment theory predictions. It is concluded that an attachment theory perspective provides new insight into the nature and causes of employee negative emotions in supervisory relationships.