Log in

CLASS 46


Now in its twelfth year, Class 46 is dedicated to European trade mark law and practice. This weblog is written by a team of enthusiasts who want to spread the word and share their thoughts with others.

Want to receive Class 46 by email?
Click here subscribe for free.

Who we all are...
Anthonia Ghalamkarizadeh
Birgit Clark
Blog Administrator
Christian Tenkhoff
Fidel Porcuna
Gino Van Roeyen
Markku Tuominen
Niamh Hall
Nikos Prentoulis
Stefan Schröter
Tomasz Rychlicki
Yvonne Onomor
THURSDAY, 30 SEPTEMBER 2010
Greece - Telecoms keep the Communication Review Board busy

The Greek Communication Review Board (CRB) was asked to decide on two recent  telecoms advertisements. Decision No. 4307 (in Greek) revolved around a tv advertisement of telecom provider Hellas On Line. HOL claimed to have put in place the “largest investment in optic fibres network in Greece”, which the CRB found to be too broad and vague a statement. It held that the claim created the danger that consumers may erroneously regard HOL as the telephone provider that has generally made the largest investments in telecoms in Greece. HOL also claimed to own the “most technologically advanced land telephony network in Greece”, which, apparently was substantiated, so the CRB allowed the claim.

 

Finally, HOL claimed that its customers enjoy an unparalleled quality of communication within the HOL network. The CRB held that the claim was an absolute statement and an exaggeration, which could not be substantiated. HOL had produced a market survey, but the CRB held that it was conducted only among  HOL customers and accordingly could not be used to draw conclusions regarding the competition. This thought raises some questions: Generally, Greek case law allows claims which are profoundly exaggerated, because consumers are not expected to actually fall for them. This bear thinks the CRB may have been a bit too strict in this one.

The other case (Decision No. 4310) involved FORTHNET TELEPHONY’s communication of a short term offer through printed advertisement. The Board found that FORTHNET did not fall short of the requirements of the Greek Advertisement – Communication Code (that is the advertising industry’s self-regulatory statute) and cleared the ad.

  
Posted by: Nikos Prentoulis @ 16.31
Tags: Greece, advertising, comparative advertsinig, Hellas on Line, Forthnet, Communication Review Board,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA2037
Reader Comments: 0
Post a Comment


MARQUES does not guarantee the accuracy of the information in this blog. The views are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect those of MARQUES. Seek professional advice before action on any information included here.


The Class 46 Archive






 

 

 

 

 

 


CONTACT

info@marques.org
+44 (0)116 2747355
POST ADDRESS

9 Cartwright Court, Cartwright Way
Bardon, Leicestershire
LE67 1UE

EMAIL

Ingrid de Groot
Internal Relations Officer
ingrid.de.groot@marques.org
Alessandra Romeo
External Relations Officer
aromeo@marques.org
James Nurton
Newsletter Editor
editor@marques.org
Robert Harrison
Webmaster
robertharrison@marques.org
BLOGS

Signup for our blogs.
Headlines delivered to your inbox