Abstract
Abstract Before the 1994 Trade Marks Act, a trader aggrieved by comparative advertising published by one of his competitors and wishing to obtain remedies in the civil courts had two main causes of action to deploy. He could sue for malicious falsehood, or he could sue for registered trade mark infringement. The former course, still available in the same form today, was not an easy one; in particular, it required proof of malice on the part of the defendant. In addition, it suffered from practical limitations if immediate relief was needed, because of the general rule that no interlocutory injunction would be granted if the defend ant intended to justify his statements.1 Advertising by its nature comes and goes fairly quickly, and all too often potential plaintiffs, knowing they could not get interlocutory relief and uninterested in a trial months or years after the advertising in question had ceased, simply took no action.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
