The court of appeal followed an ECJ ruling despite openly disagreeing with it. The case was that of luxury perfume brand L'oreal and budget brand Bellure. Bellure sold 'smell-alike' perfumes, in order to assist consumers in choosing their perfume they produced a comparison list between their perfumes and those of L'oreal.

The ECJ ruled that this amounted to trade mark infringement however Lord Justice Jacob disagreed with the ruling stating that it amounted to a restriction on free speech. Despite his disagreement Jacob followed the ruling stating the following:

"The problem, stated at its most general, is simple. Does trade mark law prevent the defendants from telling the truth?...even though the perfumes are lawful and do smell like the corresponding famous brands does trade mark law nonetheless muzzle the defendants so that they cannot say so?"

"I am in favour of free speech – and most particularly where someone wishes to tell the truth.  There is no good reason to dilute the predilection in cases where the speaker’s motive for telling the truth is his own commercial gain,"

"My own strong predilection, free from the opinion of the ECJ, would be to hold that trade mark law did not prevent traders from making honest statements about their products where those products are themselves lawful,"

"The ECJ’s decision in this case means that poor consumers are the losers...Only the poor would dream of buying [Bellure's] products. The real thing is beyond their wildest dreams.  Yet they are denied their right to receive information which would give them a little bit of pleasure; the ability to buy a product for a euro or so which they know smells like a famous perfume."