Unfair competition
Senftleben, M.; Horen, F. van
The Siren Song of the Subtle Copycat - Revisiting Trademark Law with Insights from Consumer Research Journal Article
In: The Trademark Reporter, 111 (4), pp. 739-777, 2021.
@article{Senftleben2021b,
title = {The Siren Song of the Subtle Copycat - Revisiting Trademark Law with Insights from Consumer Research},
author = {Senftleben, M. and Horen, F. van},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3922568
https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/TheTrademarkReporter_2021_4.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-10-01},
journal = {The Trademark Reporter},
volume = {111},
number = {4},
pages = {739-777},
abstract = {The architecture of trademark protection systems rests on the assumption that brand imitation strategies are particularly harmful when they seek to achieve a high level of similarity by copying specific trademarked features of the original brand. Marketing research, however, shows that this assumption is doubtful. Subtle, theme-based imitation strategies \textendash aiming at a modest degree of similarity \textendash may allow copycats to garner greater profits and manipulate consumers’ purchasing decisions. Like an enchanting siren song, they may lure customers away from the original products of brand owners. Against this background, the paper discusses the question whether trademark law should be recalibrated.
To lay groundwork for this discussion, the analysis outlines central functions of trademarks in today’s market economy before describing, on the basis of EU trademark law, the traditional approach to copycat strategies from a marketing and legal perspective. Introducing insights from recent marketing research, the paper explains why subtle, theme-based strategies may be more harmful than blatant, feature-based copying. The further examination places this insight in a legal context. Contrasting the empirical findings of marketing research with traditional assessment schemes in EU trademark law, it becomes apparent that there is a remarkable mismatch between legal theory and market reality. Current trademark provisions are not aligned with “real life” consumer perception. As a result, copycats with a subtle imitation strategy remain under the radar of applicable infringement tests. This dilemma is taken as a starting point to discuss the need for reforms in trademark law.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The architecture of trademark protection systems rests on the assumption that brand imitation strategies are particularly harmful when they seek to achieve a high level of similarity by copying specific trademarked features of the original brand. Marketing research, however, shows that this assumption is doubtful. Subtle, theme-based imitation strategies – aiming at a modest degree of similarity – may allow copycats to garner greater profits and manipulate consumers’ purchasing decisions. Like an enchanting siren song, they may lure customers away from the original products of brand owners. Against this background, the paper discusses the question whether trademark law should be recalibrated.
To lay groundwork for this discussion, the analysis outlines central functions of trademarks in today’s market economy before describing, on the basis of EU trademark law, the traditional approach to copycat strategies from a marketing and legal perspective. Introducing insights from recent marketing research, the paper explains why subtle, theme-based strategies may be more harmful than blatant, feature-based copying. The further examination places this insight in a legal context. Contrasting the empirical findings of marketing research with traditional assessment schemes in EU trademark law, it becomes apparent that there is a remarkable mismatch between legal theory and market reality. Current trademark provisions are not aligned with “real life” consumer perception. As a result, copycats with a subtle imitation strategy remain under the radar of applicable infringement tests. This dilemma is taken as a starting point to discuss the need for reforms in trademark law.
To lay groundwork for this discussion, the analysis outlines central functions of trademarks in today’s market economy before describing, on the basis of EU trademark law, the traditional approach to copycat strategies from a marketing and legal perspective. Introducing insights from recent marketing research, the paper explains why subtle, theme-based strategies may be more harmful than blatant, feature-based copying. The further examination places this insight in a legal context. Contrasting the empirical findings of marketing research with traditional assessment schemes in EU trademark law, it becomes apparent that there is a remarkable mismatch between legal theory and market reality. Current trademark provisions are not aligned with “real life” consumer perception. As a result, copycats with a subtle imitation strategy remain under the radar of applicable infringement tests. This dilemma is taken as a starting point to discuss the need for reforms in trademark law.
Helberger, N.; Dobber, T.; Vreese, C.H. de
Towards Unfair Political Practices Law: Learning lessons from the regulation of unfair commercial practices for online political advertising Journal Article
In: JIPITEC, 12 (3), pp. 273-296, 2021.
@article{Helberger2021bb,
title = {Towards Unfair Political Practices Law: Learning lessons from the regulation of unfair commercial practices for online political advertising},
author = {Helberger, N. and Dobber, T. and Vreese, C.H. de},
url = {https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-12-3-2021/5338},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-08-26},
journal = {JIPITEC},
volume = {12},
number = {3},
pages = {273-296},
abstract = {Online political advertising operates in a tense forcefield between political and commercial elements and thus presents regulators with a difficult conundrum: because online political advertising is political rather than commercial speech, it is destined to follow a different regulatory tradition than commercial advertising. And yet many of the tools used, players involved and concerns triggered by modern online political advertising strategies very much resemble the tools, players and concerns in online commercial targeting. Commercial advertising is subject to consumer law and unfair advertising regulation, including rules about unfair commercial practices. Unfair commercial practices law and other rules about commercial advertising, however, are explicitly not applicable to forms of non-commercial political or ideological advertising. An important reason why this is so is the different level of protection of political and commercial speech under fundamental rights law standards. And yet with the ongoing commercial turn in advertising, the traditional division between forms of commercial and political advertising is no longer that self-evident. Also, it cannot be denied that commercial advertising law has a long tradition of thinking of where and how to draw the line between lawful advertising and unlawful persuasion through withholding or misleading consumers about the information they need to take informed decisions, or abusing superior knowledge, exerting undue psychological pressure and engaging in other forms of unfair behaviour. The question this article explores is whether there are lessons to be learned from the regulation of commercial advertising for the pending initiatives at the national and the European level to regulate online political advertising, and online political targeting in specific.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Online political advertising operates in a tense forcefield between political and commercial elements and thus presents regulators with a difficult conundrum: because online political advertising is political rather than commercial speech, it is destined to follow a different regulatory tradition than commercial advertising. And yet many of the tools used, players involved and concerns triggered by modern online political advertising strategies very much resemble the tools, players and concerns in online commercial targeting. Commercial advertising is subject to consumer law and unfair advertising regulation, including rules about unfair commercial practices. Unfair commercial practices law and other rules about commercial advertising, however, are explicitly not applicable to forms of non-commercial political or ideological advertising. An important reason why this is so is the different level of protection of political and commercial speech under fundamental rights law standards. And yet with the ongoing commercial turn in advertising, the traditional division between forms of commercial and political advertising is no longer that self-evident. Also, it cannot be denied that commercial advertising law has a long tradition of thinking of where and how to draw the line between lawful advertising and unlawful persuasion through withholding or misleading consumers about the information they need to take informed decisions, or abusing superior knowledge, exerting undue psychological pressure and engaging in other forms of unfair behaviour. The question this article explores is whether there are lessons to be learned from the regulation of commercial advertising for the pending initiatives at the national and the European level to regulate online political advertising, and online political targeting in specific.
Sax, M.; Helberger, N.; Bol, N.
Health as a Means Towards Profitable Ends: mHealth Apps, User Autonomy, and Unfair Commercial Practices Journal Article
In: Journal of Consumer Policy, 41 (2), pp. 103-134, 2018, ISSN: 0168-7034.
@article{Sax2018,
title = {Health as a Means Towards Profitable Ends: mHealth Apps, User Autonomy, and Unfair Commercial Practices},
author = {Sax, M. and Helberger, N. and Bol, N.},
url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10603-018-9374-3},
doi = {10.1007/s10603-018-9374-3},
issn = {0168-7034},
year = {2018},
date = {2018-05-22},
journal = {Journal of Consumer Policy},
volume = {41},
number = {2},
pages = {103-134},
abstract = {In this article, we discuss mHealth apps and their potential to influence the user’s behaviour in increasingly persuasive ways. More specifically, we call attention to the fact that mHealth apps often seek to not only influence the health behaviour of users but also their economic behaviour by merging health and commercial content in ways that are hard to detect. We argue that (1) such merging of health and commercial content raises specific questions concerning the autonomy of mHealth app users, and (2) consumer law offers a promising legal lens to address questions concerning user protection in this context. Based on an empirically informed ethical analysis of autonomy, we develop a fine-grained framework that incorporates three different requirements for autonomy that we call “independence,” “authenticity,” and “options.” This framework also differentiates between three different stages of mHealth app use, namely installing, starting to use, and continuing to use an app. As a result, user autonomy can be analysed in a nuanced and precise manner. Since the concept of autonomy plays a prominent, yet poorly understood role in unfair commercial practice law, we utilize the ethical analysis of autonomy to guide our legal analysis of the proper application of unfair commercial practice law in the mHealth app domain.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
In this article, we discuss mHealth apps and their potential to influence the user’s behaviour in increasingly persuasive ways. More specifically, we call attention to the fact that mHealth apps often seek to not only influence the health behaviour of users but also their economic behaviour by merging health and commercial content in ways that are hard to detect. We argue that (1) such merging of health and commercial content raises specific questions concerning the autonomy of mHealth app users, and (2) consumer law offers a promising legal lens to address questions concerning user protection in this context. Based on an empirically informed ethical analysis of autonomy, we develop a fine-grained framework that incorporates three different requirements for autonomy that we call “independence,” “authenticity,” and “options.” This framework also differentiates between three different stages of mHealth app use, namely installing, starting to use, and continuing to use an app. As a result, user autonomy can be analysed in a nuanced and precise manner. Since the concept of autonomy plays a prominent, yet poorly understood role in unfair commercial practice law, we utilize the ethical analysis of autonomy to guide our legal analysis of the proper application of unfair commercial practice law in the mHealth app domain.
Antic, M.; Lagemaat, A.; Stekelenburg, M. van; Kabel, J.; van der Sloot, B.
2011, (
In: <em>Dutch Report for the LIDC Congress in Oxford (22-24 September 2011), </em>41 p<em>.</em>
).
@techreport{,
title = {To what extent should on-line intermediaries (such as ISPs and operators of online market places) be responsible for the control or prohibition of unfair competitive practices (in particular sales of},
author = {Antic, M. and Lagemaat, A. and Stekelenburg, M. van and Kabel, J. and van der Sloot, B.},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/rapportBNL.pdf},
year = {2011},
date = {2011-07-29},
note = {
In: <em>Dutch Report for the LIDC Congress in Oxford (22-24 September 2011), </em>41 p<em>.</em>
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
J.J.C. Kabel
2009.
@techreport{,
title = {Misleading Practices of 'Directory Companies' in the Context of Current and Future Internal Market Legislation Aimed at the Protection of Consumers and SMEs'},
author = {J.J.C. Kabel},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Misleading_directory_companies.pdf},
year = {2009},
date = {2009-04-28},
note = {
Studie in opdracht van de Commissie Interne Markt eConsumentenbescherming in het Europees Parlement.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
J.J.C. Kabel
‘Audiovisual Media Services and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’ Journal Article
In: IRIS Plus, (8), pp. 2-8, 2008.
@article{,
title = {‘Audiovisual Media Services and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’},
author = {J.J.C. Kabel},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/iplus8_2008.pdf.pdf},
year = {2008},
date = {2008-09-18},
journal = {IRIS Plus},
number = {8},
pages = {2-8},
note = {
(Supplement to IRIS - Legal Observations of the European Audiovisual Observatory)
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
J.J.C. Kabel
Eerlijke handel: de beoordeling van misleidende reclame en andere oneerlijke handelspraktijken Journal Article
In: Vakblad voor de MKB-Adviseuer, (5), pp. 6-11, 2008.
@article{,
title = {Eerlijke handel: de beoordeling van misleidende reclame en andere oneerlijke handelspraktijken},
author = {J.J.C. Kabel},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/vakblad_mkb_2008_5.pdf},
year = {2008},
date = {2008-05-15},
journal = {Vakblad voor de MKB-Adviseuer},
number = {5},
pages = {6-11},
abstract = {
Het codificeren en harmoniseren van oneerlijk mededingingsrecht gaat niet van een leien dakje, vooral omdat de belangen van de betrokken partijen niet op één lijn zijn te krijgen. Uiteindelijk heeft de Europese Commissie besloten om vooralsnog slecht een deel van het hier bedoelde rechtsgebied te harmoniseren, te weten de bescherming van de consument tegen oneerlijke handelspraktijken. Dat is gebeurd in Richtlijn 2005/29, die vervolgens is geïmplementeerd in Nederlandse wetgeving die naar alle waarschijnlijkheid een dezer dagen in werking treedt. Die wetgeving gaat een hoop problemen opleveren, lijkt nu al vast te staan.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Het codificeren en harmoniseren van oneerlijk mededingingsrecht gaat niet van een leien dakje, vooral omdat de belangen van de betrokken partijen niet op één lijn zijn te krijgen. Uiteindelijk heeft de Europese Commissie besloten om vooralsnog slecht een deel van het hier bedoelde rechtsgebied te harmoniseren, te weten de bescherming van de consument tegen oneerlijke handelspraktijken. Dat is gebeurd in Richtlijn 2005/29, die vervolgens is geïmplementeerd in Nederlandse wetgeving die naar alle waarschijnlijkheid een dezer dagen in werking treedt. Die wetgeving gaat een hoop problemen opleveren, lijkt nu al vast te staan.
J.J.C. Kabel
Annotatie bij Rb. Arnhem 31 augustus 2005 ((De Lotto / Ladbrokes)) Miscellaneous
2007.
@misc{,
title = {Annotatie bij Rb. Arnhem 31 augustus 2005 ((De Lotto / Ladbrokes))},
author = {J.J.C. Kabel},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/annotatie_ier_2005_6.pdf},
year = {2007},
date = {2007-07-25},
journal = {IER},
number = {6},
pages = {368-375},
abstract = {
Er zijn de laatste tijd veel van dit soort zaken geweest, waarin een Nederlandse aanbieder een (veelal in Engeland gevestigde) buitenlander van de internetgokmarkt verdrijft met het argument dat wat Nederlanders niet mogen, ook aan buitenlanders niet is toegestaan uit een oogpunt van eerlijke concurrentie. Tot nu toe hebben de Nederlandse vergunninghouders het doorgaans gewonnen. Dat gebeurt hier ook, mede dankzij een bijzondere vorm van public-private partnership tussen rechterlijke en uitvoerende macht. Publiek en privaat belang lijken hier als uit één mond te spreken. Dat wekt enig wantrouwen. Wordt het leerstuk van oneerlijke voorsprong door wetsovertreding wel goed toegepast?
},
note = {
Rechtspraak zoeken: http://zoeken.rechtspraak.nl/detailpage.aspx?ljn=AU1924
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}
Er zijn de laatste tijd veel van dit soort zaken geweest, waarin een Nederlandse aanbieder een (veelal in Engeland gevestigde) buitenlander van de internetgokmarkt verdrijft met het argument dat wat Nederlanders niet mogen, ook aan buitenlanders niet is toegestaan uit een oogpunt van eerlijke concurrentie. Tot nu toe hebben de Nederlandse vergunninghouders het doorgaans gewonnen. Dat gebeurt hier ook, mede dankzij een bijzondere vorm van public-private partnership tussen rechterlijke en uitvoerende macht. Publiek en privaat belang lijken hier als uit één mond te spreken. Dat wekt enig wantrouwen. Wordt het leerstuk van oneerlijke voorsprong door wetsovertreding wel goed toegepast?
J.J.C. Kabel
Moet er een nieuwe Aalberse opstaan? Oneerlijke handelspraktijken in B2B-verhoudingen (40) Journal Article
In: IER, (3), pp. 143-144, 2007.
@article{,
title = {Moet er een nieuwe Aalberse opstaan? Oneerlijke handelspraktijken in B2B-verhoudingen (40)},
author = {J.J.C. Kabel},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/IER_2007_3.pdf},
year = {2007},
date = {2007-07-10},
journal = {IER},
number = {3},
pages = {143-144},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
J.J.C. Kabel
2007.
@techreport{,
title = {Should the objectives of the rules on unfair competition be te protection of competitors, or consumers, or of other interests? How should any conflict between these objectives be resolved?},
author = {J.J.C. Kabel},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/LIDC_International_Report.pdf},
year = {2007},
date = {2007-05-24},
abstract = {
The European Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices of May 11, 2005 regulates exclusively unfair commercial practices which are directly related to influencing a transactional decision of end-consumers and excludes all practices that are neither directed to end-consumers, nor directly influencing a transactional decision of consumers. Misleading advertising, for instance, is now judged on the basis of two different sets of regulation: the new Directive 2005/29/EC deals with "B2C"-advertising, while "B2B"-advertising has to comply with Directive 84/450/EEC. This international report, based upon contributions from eleven countries, is devoted to the question whether there are a priori two different standards for assessing unfair commercial practices. Is there one standard for consumers and another one for competitors? On the other hand, are the interests of all market participants too intertwined to allow different standards of fairness? More generally: Should the rules on unfair competition focus on the act as such - which, of course, must be seen against the background of alle circumstances, especially the target group - or should they focus primarily on the protection of the end-consumer or of competitors?
},
note = {
International Report for the LIDC Amsterdam Congress on Competition Law
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
The European Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices of May 11, 2005 regulates exclusively unfair commercial practices which are directly related to influencing a transactional decision of end-consumers and excludes all practices that are neither directed to end-consumers, nor directly influencing a transactional decision of consumers. Misleading advertising, for instance, is now judged on the basis of two different sets of regulation: the new Directive 2005/29/EC deals with "B2C"-advertising, while "B2B"-advertising has to comply with Directive 84/450/EEC. This international report, based upon contributions from eleven countries, is devoted to the question whether there are a priori two different standards for assessing unfair commercial practices. Is there one standard for consumers and another one for competitors? On the other hand, are the interests of all market participants too intertwined to allow different standards of fairness? More generally: Should the rules on unfair competition focus on the act as such - which, of course, must be seen against the background of alle circumstances, especially the target group - or should they focus primarily on the protection of the end-consumer or of competitors?
J.J.C. Kabel
‘Kroniek Reclamerecht en Oneerlijke Mededinging 2004’ Journal Article
In: IER, (2), pp. 85-90, 2005.
@article{,
title = {‘Kroniek Reclamerecht en Oneerlijke Mededinging 2004’},
author = {J.J.C. Kabel},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/artikel_kroniekIER2004.pdf},
year = {2005},
date = {2005-06-17},
journal = {IER},
number = {2},
pages = {85-90},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
J.J.C. Kabel
‘Reclamerecht en oneerlijke mededinging’ Technical Report
(2), 2001.
@techreport{,
title = {‘Reclamerecht en oneerlijke mededinging’},
author = {J.J.C. Kabel},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/kroniekIER2000.pdf},
year = {2001},
date = {2001-09-01},
journal = {IER},
number = {2},
pages = {50-55},
abstract = {
Kabel verzorgt jaarlijks de kroniek 'Reclamerecht en oneerlijke mededinging' voor het tijdschrift Intellectuele eigendom en reclamerecht. De hier opgenomen bijdrage over het jaar 2000 is gewijd aan de e-commerce richtlijn, de voorstellen tot grondwetswijziging (artikel 7lid 4 Grondwet wordt geschrapt), reclame voor kinderen, de rechtspraak van het HvJEG en de Nederlandse rechtspraak op het terrein van internet en reclame, medische claims en oneerlijke mededingingsrubrieken als prestatiebescherming, aanhakende, afbrekende en vergelijkende reclame alsmede het profiteren van wanprestatie.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
Kabel verzorgt jaarlijks de kroniek 'Reclamerecht en oneerlijke mededinging' voor het tijdschrift Intellectuele eigendom en reclamerecht. De hier opgenomen bijdrage over het jaar 2000 is gewijd aan de e-commerce richtlijn, de voorstellen tot grondwetswijziging (artikel 7lid 4 Grondwet wordt geschrapt), reclame voor kinderen, de rechtspraak van het HvJEG en de Nederlandse rechtspraak op het terrein van internet en reclame, medische claims en oneerlijke mededingingsrubrieken als prestatiebescherming, aanhakende, afbrekende en vergelijkende reclame alsmede het profiteren van wanprestatie.
J.J.C. Kabel
2001.
@misc{,
title = {Transborder Advertising and Unfair competition: Country of Origin v. Country of Destination? Clarification of the Resolution of the International League of Competition Law},
author = {J.J.C. Kabel},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/clarification.pdf},
year = {2001},
date = {2001-09-01},
abstract = {
Met de nieuwe e-commerce richtlijn is de vraag hoe het zit met het beginsel van het land van herkomst voor de beoordeling van grensoverschrijdende reclame en oneerlijke mededingingshandelingen weer actueel. De nieuwe richtlijn past unverfroren het land van herkomst principe toe. Maar is dat wel een goed principe op het terrein van de oneerlijke medededinging? Indertijd heeft de Ligue International du Droit de la Concurrence hier een congres aan gewijd. Een eerdere versie van dit artikel diende mede als basis voor de discussies. In de hier voorliggende publicatie wordt geprobeerd een genuanceerd standpunt in te nemen.
},
note = {
In: Eenvormig en vergelijkend privaatrecht, Molengrafica, Lelystad: Koninklijke Vermande BV 1994, p. 285-30.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}
Met de nieuwe e-commerce richtlijn is de vraag hoe het zit met het beginsel van het land van herkomst voor de beoordeling van grensoverschrijdende reclame en oneerlijke mededingingshandelingen weer actueel. De nieuwe richtlijn past unverfroren het land van herkomst principe toe. Maar is dat wel een goed principe op het terrein van de oneerlijke medededinging? Indertijd heeft de Ligue International du Droit de la Concurrence hier een congres aan gewijd. Een eerdere versie van dit artikel diende mede als basis voor de discussies. In de hier voorliggende publicatie wordt geprobeerd een genuanceerd standpunt in te nemen.
J.J.C. Kabel
Oneerlijke mededinging en de vrijheid van wetenschappelijke informatievoorziening’ ((Hertel v. Zwitserland)) Technical Report
1999.
@techreport{,
title = {Oneerlijke mededinging en de vrijheid van wetenschappelijke informatievoorziening’ ((Hertel v. Zwitserland))},
author = {J.J.C. Kabel},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Hertel.pdf},
year = {1999},
date = {1999-02-06},
booktitle = {EHRM 25 augustus 1998 },
abstract = {
Ingevolge het EHRM in zijn uitspraak Hertel v. Zwitserland mag een met het nodige voorbehoud geformuleerd, wetenschappelijk onderzoeksverslag door de nationale rechter als onrechtmatige oneerlijke mededinging worden bestempeld, indien het de omzet van daarin onderzochte produkten daadwerkelijk nadelig beïnvloedt. Dat is een concurrentie-norm die wordt toegepast buiten het domein van de mededinging. De Zwitserse wetgeving maakt zulks mogelijk, omdat zij oneerlijke medinging ruim definieert. Het Hof heeft het ten onrechte niet gewaagd om de te ruime omvang van de Zwitserse regel zelf aan de orde te stellen. Daardoor blijft de vrijheid van de nationale wetgever en rechter om allerlei gedragingen die buiten het domein van concurrentie vallen, als oneerlijke mededinging te kwalificeren en de bijhorende normen toe te passen, helaas intact.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
Ingevolge het EHRM in zijn uitspraak Hertel v. Zwitserland mag een met het nodige voorbehoud geformuleerd, wetenschappelijk onderzoeksverslag door de nationale rechter als onrechtmatige oneerlijke mededinging worden bestempeld, indien het de omzet van daarin onderzochte produkten daadwerkelijk nadelig beïnvloedt. Dat is een concurrentie-norm die wordt toegepast buiten het domein van de mededinging. De Zwitserse wetgeving maakt zulks mogelijk, omdat zij oneerlijke medinging ruim definieert. Het Hof heeft het ten onrechte niet gewaagd om de te ruime omvang van de Zwitserse regel zelf aan de orde te stellen. Daardoor blijft de vrijheid van de nationale wetgever en rechter om allerlei gedragingen die buiten het domein van concurrentie vallen, als oneerlijke mededinging te kwalificeren en de bijhorende normen toe te passen, helaas intact.