In a short reasoning, the court ruled that the defendant had deliberately sold the quad bike under a different mark, thus misleading the consumers to take a transactional decision which they would not have taken otherwise. The mark of a product, so the court held, is essential information which allows the consumers to take an informed decision.
According to the court, it was the intention of the defendant to mislead its consumers.
A misleading practice was therefore established.
Test sħiħ: Test sħiħ