ANOTHERPASSINGOFF
NEW ONE START FROM HERE ======
In 1997, the Misleading Advertising Directive was amended in order to include comparative advertising.150 As a result, a consolidated Directive concerning misleading and comparative advertising was conceived that consists of a set of rules applying to misleading and comparative advertising. This amended Directive was the second important step forward in the harmonisation of unfair competition law in the European Union. Under the Directive, comparative advertising is basically allowed if certain conditions are met. Since the rules on comparative advertising are based on total harmonisation and the rules on misleading advertising are based on minimum harmonisation, one can foresee problems occurring in the relationship between these two types of advertising in one directive. What would occur if we had to assess, in a single Member State, an advertisement that is allegedly misleading on the one hand, and, on the other, an advertisement that is allegedly misleading as well as comparative? The first advertisement would have to be assessed against the rules on misleading advertising, that fall within the minimum harmonisation regime. For this type of advertisement, Member States are thus allowed to adopt provisions with a view to ensuring more extensive protection.151 As a consequence, this advertisement could be subject to a critical judgement in a Member State that has chosen to draft rules on misleading advertising allowing for more consumer protection. The second, comparative, advertisement on the other hand, might not be held to be unlawful in the same Member State, since those strict rules on misleading advertising do not apply. For comparative advertisements, the rules of the Directive that fall within the total harmonisation regime will apply, meaning that in these cases Member States are not allowed to deviate from the rules in the Directive. In such cases, whether or not there is a case of misleading...