Jurisprudencia

  • Detalles del asunto
    • ID nacional: Supreme Court (Sala 1ª Civil), Judgement 469/2019
    • Estado miembro: España
    • Denominación común:N/A
    • Tipo de resolución: Resolución del Tribunal Supremo
    • Fecha de la resolución: 13/11/2019
    • Órgano jurisdiccional: Tribunal Supremo (Sala 1ª de lo Civil)
    • Asunto:
    • Demandante:
    • Demandado:
    • Palabras clave: Comparative advertising
  • Artículos de la Directiva
    Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 4, (g)
  • Nota preliminar

    ECLI:ES:TS:2019:11785A

    A trademark infringement occurs when advertising has the intention of taking advantage of the reputation and prestige of the perfume brands of competing companies. In order for this to occur, it is necessary that the allusion to competing brands is devised to not make known that the product is an imitation of another, but to obtain sales at the cost of linking itself with competing perfumes.

  • Hechos

    Yodeyma Parfums is a company dedicated to the distribution and commercialisation in both hairdressing salons and on the Internet of fragrances that appear as imitation of original perfumes that supposedly are equivalent in scent. Yodeyma's use of Puig brands is carried out by supplying equivalency lists as well as through a search engine on its website that has the search criteria for reputed Puig perfume brands, including among others, Carolina Herrera, Paco Rabanne, Nina Ricci, and Jean Paul Gaultier. Puig sues Yodeyma on the grounds of unfair competition and trademark infringement.

  • Cuestión jurídica

    Is the use of equivalency lists considered to be unfair competition and a trademark infringment?

  • Decisión

    The use of lists of equivalence between the perfumes under the excuse of their descriptive function supposes an illicit use of advertising that facilitates their sale, taking advantage of the reputation and name of the marks of the defendants. It is a comparative advertising that does not meet all the lawfulness requirements set out in Article 3a (1) of Council Directive 84/450 of 10 September 1984 on misleading and comparative advertising.

    URL: http://www.poderjudicial.es/search/documento/TS/8889156/derecho%20mercantil/20190923

    Texto completo: Texto completo

  • Asuntos relacionados

    No hay resultados disponibles

  • Literatura jurídica

    No hay resultados disponibles

  • Resultado

    The Supreme Court rejects the appeal and confirms the sentence handed down by the Alicante Provincial Court (2 June 2017).