Operator fails to stifle price comparison advert

Mobile firm O2 has lost its fourth and final court case against rival operator 3 over an advertisement that pointed out the high price of O2's pay-as-you-go service.

The case began in November 2004 when O2 attempted to get an injunction against 3 preventing it from broadcasting the advert.

The promotion highlighted how a three-minute pay as you go call cost O2 customers 75p and 3 customers only 15p. O2 also tried to stop 3 using its logo in the advert.

O2 failed to get an injunction to stop the advert being broadcast and in February its application to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights was also turned down.

A third hearing was convened in February last year at which O2 tried and failed to introduce new evidence.

In the fourth hearing the High Court ruled that 3 could use O2's trademarks to identify O2 in order to make a fair and accurate comparison between the operators' prices.

The ruling confirmed that 3 had complied with all applicable comparative advertising rules and therefore rejected O2's claim that the advertisement infringed its trademarks.

"O2 has tried to stop 3 using effective comparative advertising, but fortunately for the UK consumer it has completely failed in its aims," said Graeme Oxby, marketing director at 3 UK.

"Our advert was a legitimate way for us to highlight the great value we offered in comparison to O2. More importantly it was a fair and accurate comparison.

"We believe that customers have the right to see our comparative advertising, and the judge agreed."

O2, which was recently bought by Spain's Telefónica for £17.7bn, said that it may fight the ruling. "We are considering an appeal," a spokesman told Reuters.