The plaintiff, a medical instruments and machines seller, argued in its first degree claim that its company is the biggest Greek company representing foreign companies in the market of sale and service of medical equipments of high technology. The plaintiff also claimed that the first defendant, operating a competitive company, used misleading advertisements using unfair competition practices against the plaintiff, contrary to fair transactional ethics.
Based on the above facts, the plaintiff claimed that due to the damage to its reputation it had suffered non pecuniary losses. In addition, it claimed that the defendants should be prohibited from repeating the specific or similar to the specific misleading advertisement in the future.
During the proceedings in first instance before the court, it was proved among other facts that the companies have a competitive relationship; regardless from their ranking within the relevant transactional circle, they are active in the same market place and the products they trade address to the same clients. In February 2009 the first defendant, legally represented by the second defendant, published an advertisement in a very famous professional magazine of medical technology. In this advertisement the defendant claimed that as from the date of its establishment it had achieved to reach 100% of the orders made for X-ray therapeutic machines from customers in Greece and Cyprus. The advertisement was not accurate since it was proven the plaintiff was also active by supplying the private and the public sector within the same territory with X-ray therapeutic machines at the same time.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the claim due to lack of essential basis and had ordered the plaintiff to pay the judicial costs of the first defendant. The plaintiff appealed to the decision of the first degree for non-correct application of law and false proof estimation.