Ireland: A High Water Mark For Comparative Advertising In Ireland

Last Updated: 12 October 2015
Article by Alistair Payne

A recent decision in a dispute between Aldi and Dunnes Stores suggests that, despite the pointers from the CJEU, comparative advertising is a dangerous game to play in Ireland. Alistair Payne explains.


Comparative advertising law should encourage competition while ensuring that consumers are not misled. But a recent decision in Ireland – Aldi Stores (Ireland) Limited and Aldi GMBH and Co v Dunnes Stores – concerning groceries suggests that it will be hard to defend comparative advertising in practice. This is despite Ireland's implementation of the EU Comparative Advertising Directive and CJEU case law saying that the conditions required for comparative advertising must be interpreted in the sense most favourable to it. As such, the decision raises serious questions as to whether the law is out of step with commercial reality, at least in the grocery sector. Given that many companies export goods to Ireland, the decision has implications beyond the country's borders and in particular for United Kingdom based retailers operating in Ireland.

Comparative advertising law seeks to balance competing marketplace interests so as to encourage healthy competition while ensuring that consumers are not misled. However the Gordian knot of a European Directive, implementing national legislation and a conservative black letter law approach to judicial interpretation can strangle even the most laudable of policy intentions. Based on the approach adopted by the Irish High Court in Aldi Stores (Ireland) Limited and Aldi GMBH and Co v Dunnes Stores (2013 No 13177 P – decision of Mr Justice Cregan, June 9 2015), comparative advertising in Ireland becomes a bit like a game of Russian roulette, other than in the most straightforward and transparent circumstances.

The comparative advertising campaign

Dunnes undertook a comparative advertising campaign by displaying shelf-edge labels that compared their products with each of a number of products sold by Aldi. First, Aldi complained that either the two products were not comparable or that the labels failed to compare the products properly. Second, Aldi alleged that Dunnes used banners in its supermarkets that contained the Aldi trade mark and in particular, the words "lower price guarantee" and "guaranteed lower prices on all your family essentials every week" and the words "Aldi match". The third category of complaint related to other shelf edge labels which compared Aldi's products to Dunnes' products and which contained the words "lower price guarantee" and "always better value". Aldi maintained that these labels represented that Dunnes' products were cheaper than Aldi's when this was not the case. In addition and based on Dunnes' unauthorised use of the Aldi trade mark in the course of these advertisements, Aldi alleged trade mark infringement.

The 2007 Regulations

The key provisions relevant to comparative advertising are set out in the Regulation and at Section 2(1) a "comparative marketing communication" is defined as "....any form of representation made by a trader that explicitly or by implication identifies a competitor of the trader or a product offered by such a competitor". Regulation 4(2) provides that:

A comparative marketing communication is prohibited if as regards the comparison –
  1. it is misleading under Regulation 3,
  2. it is a misleading commercial practice under any of sections 43 to 46 of the Consumer Protection Act 2007 (No 19 of 2007),
  3. it does not compare products meeting the same needs or intended for the same purpose,
  4. It does not objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable, and representative features of those products, which may include price,
  5. it discredits or denigrates the trade marks, trade names, other distinguishing marks, products, activities, or circumstances of a competitor,
  6. for products with designation of origin, it does not relate in each case to products with the same designation,
  7. it takes unfair advantage of the reputation of a trade mark, trade name or other distinguishing marks of a competitor or of the designation of origin of competing products,
  8. it presents goods or services as imitations or replicas of goods or services bearing a protected trade mark or trade name, or
  9. it creates confusion among traders-

    1. between the trader who made the comparative marketing communication and a competitor, or
    2. between the trade marks, trade names, other distinguishing marks, goods or services of the trader who made the comparative marketing communication and those of a competitor. Regulation 3(1) provides:
"A trader shall not engage in a misleading marketing communication" and Regulation 3(2) provides that "A marketing communication is misleading if –
  1. in any way (including its presentation), it deceives or is likely to deceive in relation to any matter set out in paragraph (4) the trader to whom it is addressed or whom it reaches, and
  2. (i) by reason of its deceptive nature, it is likely to affect the trader's economic behaviour, or (ii) for any reason specified in this paragraph, it injures or is likely to injure a competitor."

The law in Ireland

Council Directive 2006/114/EC (the Comparative Advertising Directive) has been implemented in Ireland by the European Communities (Misleading and Comparative Marketing Communications) Regulations 2007 (SI 774/2007) and by The Consumer Protection Act 2007 (CPA) which prohibits misleading commercial practices and misleading comparative advertising that does not comply with specified conditions as transposed from the Directive. The fundamental difference between the two pieces of legislation is that the Regulation gives traders a right of private action to bring down misleading advertising by other traders, while the Consumer Protection Act provides similar safeguards to consumers, including a right to make a complaint to a statutory enforcement agency. In the course of reviewing the principles emerging from numerous CJEU cases and in particular LIDL SNC v Vierzon Distribution SA (Case C-159/09 [2010]), the High Court acknowledged that although compared food products should be at base substitutable for each other, they need not be identical to be comparable. It noted the CJEU's direction that to require identically between two food products would effectively rule out any possibility of traders being able to undertake comparative advertising and reiterated the CJEU's assessment that to do so would run counter to the CJEU's settled case law that the conditions required of comparative advertising under the Comparative Advertising Directive must be interpreted in the sense most favourable to it. In spite of its recognition of these interpretative principles, in practice the Court's product assessment ended up being rather more narrow.

Were the 15 products in the first category of complaint comparable?

In undertaking its comparison of the comparability of products the Court elected to adopt the approach to comparative analysis advocated by Aldi's experts. This was to compare the five key criteria of quantity, provenance, nature, substance and quality, rather than to focus on nutritional composition as espoused by Dunnes's experts and which the Court considered to be too generic in approach. Applying these criteria in a thorough comparison of 15 own-brand products based on the evidence presented by a whole range of experts, the Court did not identify one single product as being comparable, although it did consider one product to be "borderline". The products compared were all own-label products of a range of basic items that weekly shoppers might purchase and for the most part were in identical volumes, for example, 100g of tomato sauce, 400g of turkey breast mince, 2 litres of sparkling orange drink, 500g of strawberry yoghurt, 400g of tinned chicken dog food. The differences identified by the Court mainly related to quality or provenance, for example, that the Aldi tomato sauce contained nearly twice as many tomatoes, that Aldi's turkey breast mince was endorsed by the Irish food agency, Bord Bia, whereas the Dunnes product was not; that Aldi strawberry yoghurt contained 13% more strawberries; that Aldi sparkling orange product had almost four times more orange content and the tinned chicken dog food offered by Aldi contained 4% carrot whereas the Dunnes product contained no carrot.

Were the advertisements in breach of the Regulations?

The Court's comparison of these products was made in the context of the requirements of section 4(2)(d) of the Regulation which it interpreted as having regard to whether the advertisement failed on an objective basis to compare " or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative features... ." of the respective products and of section 4(2)(c) of the Regulation which requires that a comparative advertisement compares products "meeting the same needs or intended for the same purpose". It also considered the 15 products in relation to the test in section 4(2)(b) of the Regulation which proscribes any breach of sections 43-46 of the CPA. Essentially these provisions prohibit misleading or deceptive representations, the provision of false information, or the omission or concealment of material information, where it would result in an average consumer making a purchase that they would not otherwise make. In a very detailed analysis the Court found that all of the banner advertisements and shelf edge labels in relation to the 15 products breached sections(4)(2)(c) and 4(2)(d ) and that 14 of them breached section 4(2)(b).

The CJEU's principles and application across the water

Although the Court acknowledged the principles for comparative advertising stated by the CJEU, its application of them to the assessment of each product in this case was at best extremely narrow. In LIDL the CJEU confirmed that nothing in the Directive requires food products to be identical before comparative advertising will be permitted as this would obviously rule out any real prospect of comparative advertising being used at all in this sector. It stated that Article 4 (b) should be interpreted as meaning that the fact alone that food products differed in terms of the extent to which consumers might like to eat them, or their ingredients or the conditions or their place of production or who produced them could not preclude the possibility that the products demonstrated the requisite degree of interchangeability for comparative advertising purposes. The CJEU further noted that it was for the national court to take into account the perception of the average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect and whether in the circumstances and bearing in mind the consumer audience, the comparative advertisement was misleading.

These principles were recently applied by the English High Court in R (Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited) v The Independent Review of Advertising Standards Authority Adjudications ([2014] EWHC 3680), which case was noted in the Irish High Court judgment. In the Sainsbury's case the English High Court reviewed a determination of the Independent Reviewer of a decision by the Advertising Standards Authority concerning Tesco's own brand comparative advertisements. The ASA's decision confirmed that it considered products such as eggs, fish and chicken curry meal products to be comparable for comparative advertising purposes even where the competitor's products had a different certification or provenance. The rationale in this case was that the compared goods met the "same need" test and that neither certification nor provenance were key factors for customers in relation to these particular products. The ASA's conclusion was "that non-price features, such as provenance, were not covered by that test in relation to a price comparison except where those features were essential features of the products under comparison". This approach was endorsed by the Independent Reviewer and subsequently by the English High Court in light of the principles from the Lidl case.

Banners and lower price guarantee shelf edge labels

Rather less surprisingly, the Court found that the Dunnes' banners containing the words "lower price guarantee" and "guaranteed lower prices on all your family essentials every week" and the words "Aldi match" were so vague that they did not make a proper comparison and in the circumstances were misleading.

The Court also found that the shelf edge labels which compared the price of individual products sold by Dunnes to unspecified Aldi products, but using the Aldi mark and which contained the words "lower price guarantee" and "always better value" were not objective comparisons in relation to products meeting the same needs and for the same purposes and were also misleading by omission. Both of these findings seem in the factual circumstances to be reasonable and uncontroversial.

As a consequence of the unauthorised uses made by Dunnes of the Aldi trade mark and of the Court's finding of breaches of the Regulations implementing the Comparative Advertising Directive, it found that Dunnes had taken unfair advantage of the Aldi trade mark in a manner that was detrimental to that mark and which was not in accordance with honest practices and as a result amounted to trade mark infringement.

Do dogs really prefer carrots in their chicken dinner?

The difficulty in making a thorough but nevertheless black letter law type analysis and application of the Regulation is that this approach tends to lose sight of the ultimate policy goal of the Directive, as interpreted by the CJEU, namely to encourage competition while protecting consumers' and trade mark owners' rights. It is a delicate and difficult balance to achieve but is unlikely to be arrived at unless the interpretation of the implementing legislation is firmly anchored in the context of the principles laid down by the CJEU and of the stated policy objective of the Directive.

Certainly as far as the comparative advertising of every day own-brand grocery items is concerned, the concepts of comparability and interchangeability should be reasonably straightforward. As set out in Article 4 of the Directive the key requirements making comparative advertising permissible are that the advertisement compares goods or services meeting the same needs or intended for the same purpose, that it objectively compares material, relevant, verifiable and representative features of the goods and is not misleading. It is hard to think of a more straightforward comparison than of the same sized portion of two supermarket's own-brand basic food items, such as tomato sauce, strawberry yoghurt, sparkling orange drink or tinned dog food. The representative samples of each item are clearly intended for the same purpose and provided that a compared product is not aimed at a special target market and therefore is not different in a respect material to target consumers (for example fat free yoghurt is most probably not interchangeable with full fat yoghurt) then it should be comparable.

Obviously there could be a myriad of fine differences between the respective products, but what should matter in terms of comparability, as highlighted in the Sainsbury case, is the way in which the product manufacturer represents the product and what on an objective basis is likely to influence the customer to purchase the product. The fact that the products differ in some qualitative respect that will not be apparent or a key influencer for the purchasing customer, should not be relevant from an interchangeability perspective. For example, it is difficult to see how otherwise comparable own-brand chicken dinner products for dogs can be differentiated on the basis that one contains a 4% carrot content, which a purchasing customer would only become aware of if they read the list of ingredients in fine print on the can. One wonders how many Irish dog owners would stop to read this when shopping in a busy supermarket aisle? More particularly, how many might consider that their pooch should be pampered to the extent that they would be prepared to pay more for a product that was otherwise comparable purely on the basis that it contained 4% carrots? Is this difference really so material that it should prohibit comparative advertising?

Where next for comparative advertising in Ireland?

Pending the outcome of any decision on appeal in the Dunnes Stores case, it will be difficult to advise clients that comparative advertisements in Ireland, in all but the most straightforward cases, will not risk breaching the Regulations or the CPA and will not give rise to trade mark infringement, at least in circumstances that a competitor might bring an application for interim injunctive relief. If the Irish courts continue to take such a narrow approach in determining the interchangeability of products then it is likely that most traders will consider that comparative advertising is a game that is too dangerous to play in the Irish market.

This is an unfortunate outcome for consumers in a small market that has limited competition in many sectors. Even if only on a temporary basis, this decision has a chilling effect on comparative advertising and means that such campaigns whether planned locally, or for example in the United Kingdom with the intention of extension to Ireland, will need to be considered very carefully indeed if they are not to fall foul of Irish comparative advertising law.

This article first appeared in Managing IP Ireland: Comparative Advertising 2015.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions