Facts

The claimant is the owner of two European trademarks, protected in classes 9, 10, 35 and 44, for medical instruments and services based on bio-resonance. The defendant, a former employee of the claimant, established its own company and became a competitor of the claimant.

In its business communications addressed to the relevant public, the defendant stated that its goods, which bore the same trademarks as the claimant's products, were the genuine products. The defendant stated that the claimant's products were fake and called on the relevant public to boycott them. The claimant filed a request for an interim injunction, asking for the defendant to be prohibited from using the mark.

Metropolitan Tribunal

The Metropolitan Tribunal issued an interim injunction to prohibit the defendant from using the claimant's mark. The Tribunal held that the defendant's activity constituted trademark infringement. The defendant, in its ads, had claimed that its goods were of a better quality than those traded by the claimant. This allegation was unfair.

Metropolitan Court of Appeal

The defendant filed an appeal with the Metropolitan Court of Appeal, which was successful – the Court annulled the Tribunal's decision. The Court held that the defendant's use of the mark did not qualify as trademark use within the meaning of the EU Trademark Regulation. As the parties had traded the goods in parallel, consumers associated the sign with both parties. The claim based on unfair competition...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiuAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5sZXhvbG9ne...