Νομολογία

Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 2, (b)

ECLI:CY:EDLEF:2020:A391

The use of a word long associated with one brand by a rival brand may constitute misleading advertising that violates industrial property and harms the public.

The case involves a civil action between two main Cyprus ice cream makers. The plaintiff alleges that the use by the defendant of the term plaka (chocolate bar in Greek), which they have used and established in the Cyprus market for considerable time would mislead the public.

Whether the use, by the defendant, of a word long associated with the plaintiff’s brand would be regarded as misleading advertising or brand disparagement.

Whereas the packaging appears sufficiently different, the use by the defendants of the same descriptive word used by the plaintiffs for a long period of time in their advertisements as their “communication conduit” with the public may constitute unfair or misleading representation. The Court quoted from CJEU case law, especially involving trademarks, and relied on the industrial-property tort of brand disparagement.

URL: http://cylaw.org/cgi-bin/open.pl?file=/apofaseised/pol/2020/1120200548.htm

Πλήρες κείμενο: Πλήρες κείμενο

Δεν υπάρχουν αποτελέσματα

Δεν υπάρχουν αποτελέσματα

The District Court found for the plaintiff and granted an interlocutory order (an injunction prohibiting the defendant from making use of the disputed word in its brand). Whereas much of the legal argument involved economic tort and industrial property, this is one of the most significant Cyprus court cases to have touched matters of allegedly misleading the public via advertisement, with the plaintiff playing the part of private regulatory enforcement and a rich discussion of international and EU instruments and authorities.