ARTICLE
6 February 2009

P4 Ordered To Stop Ad Campaign

CC
CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang

Contributor

CMS is a Future Facing firm with 79 offices in over 40 countries and more than 5,000 lawyers globally. Combining local market insight with a global perspective, CMS provides business-focused advice to help clients navigate change confidently. The firm's expertise and innovative approach anticipate challenges and develop solutions. CMS is committed to diversity, inclusivity, and corporate social responsibility, fostering a supportive culture. The firm addresses key client concerns like efficiency and regulatory challenges through services like Law-Now, offering real-time eAlerts, mobile access, an extensive legal archive, specialist zones, and global events.

P4, operator of the Play mobile network, has been ordered to stop its current advertising campaign until its court dispute with Polkomtel – the operator of Plus - is over.
Poland Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

P4, operator of the Play mobile network, has been ordered to stop its current advertising campaign until its court dispute with Polkomtel – the operator of Plus – is over.

Play claims in its TV, radio, press and outdoor advertising campaign that it is cheaper to call customers of Plus, Era and Orange using Play than it is to call them using the customer's own network.

The operator of the Plus mobile network is claiming that the campaign is misleading as, if Play's comparison included all services, calls on Play would not be cheaper.

Comparative advertising is lawful as long as it is not misleading and satisfies certain other requirements. It is even permissible to advertise using a competitor's registered trademark.

This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to www.law-now.com/law-now/mondaq

Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.

The original publication date for this article was 05/02/2009.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More