You don't think that an ad where 3/4 of the copy is about how Samsung infringed and 1/4 dedicated to the ruling that it did not isn't confusing for a customer?
Let me put it another way - If Apple can say that Samsung devices causes customer confusion because they are "similar" - I think Samsung can argue easily that this ad does too.
Contempt of Court is entirely different. AFAIK it wouldn't be Samsung pursuing that, it would be the state itself.
It's not 3/4. The first paragraph was recommended by a judge, so that one we can exclude. The Next two paragraphs are the /reasoning/ why Samsung don't infringe (click on the law report link, it's not even out of context). The 4th paragraph is then about the jurisdiction it applies to and whether it had been confirmed by an appellate court. It's only the last paragraph which is the dubious one. But again I would argue it's not contempt as they're well entitled to state fact, it's not saying that the UK judgment is wrong.
No, they were forced to do it for consumer certainty; not for 'badmouthing Samsung' or going against the Court. Again, click on the law report and read it for yourself; the CA sets out in detail why such order is now necessary. I've already pasted the CA reasoning; that's the ratio, you follow the ratio. The judges personal opinions are irrelevant at this stage.