The opening sentence in a ruling handed down (up? I was never sure of this) by Mr Justice Lewison in the UK about a TV ad campaign by phone service provider O2 filed by rival Network 3 whose graphic brand identifier is, you guessed it, bubbles. Although I couldn’t find any such on their website. Quoth the Guardian: [Network 3 had] sought an injunction to have the adverts pulled, but the high court did not accept arguments that the price comparison used was inaccurate or unfair.He said bubbling imagery was commonplace in advertising, citing campaigns for Aero chocolate bars, Oral-B Sonic toothbrushes, Colgate Oxygen toothpaste, British Airways flights and Microsoft Office. There was no possibility of viewers confusing the two networks and 3’s campaign had not discredited O2’s trademark, he said.
Could I request that all rulings in this sort of case begin with this phrase, just to keep everything in moral context?