One Essex Court Osborne Clarke Pinsent Masons Pinsent Masons wins trademark dispute for Interflora against M&S By Katy Dowell 21 May 2013 13:24 17 December 2015 13:21 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer Anonymous 27 May 2013 at 06:26 Rather embarrassing for M&S’s advisers that it was left to the judge to point out a possible defence of lawful comparative advertising – which he could not consider as it was not put to him. If I were M&S I’d be asking some questions of my counsel – why didn’t they think of that one? If they had, the outcome might have been very different. Reply Link Nice One Bert 28 May 2013 at 11:21 Would it have been different? The Comparative Advertising Directive includes a provision on confusion, Arnold effectively held that confusion was occuring by his judgement. I appreciate that the tests under the Comparative Advertising Directive and the standard CJEU case law on the ‘origin’ test are slightly different, but I find it hard to believe that the decision would have been ‘very different’ if the Comparative Advertising Directive argument would have raised as a defence. This case turned on the specific facts of the Interflora business model. Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.