The plaintiff filed a lawsuit, pointing out that the defendant infringed its right to the business name and committed an act of unfair competition by using a misleading advertisement that used the plaintiff's name.
The defendant denied committing this act of unfair competition, arguing that all its activities related to advertising were performed by third parties on the basis of civil contracts.
The District Court agreed that the defendant had infringed the plaintiff's right to the business name and had committed an act of unfair competition; however, it dismissed the claim. The judgment pointed out that the defendant's actions were not deliberate and therefore the defendant was not culpable. The defendant immediately removed reference to the plaintiff's name upon receiving a demand to cease the infringing acts. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not prove that the advertisement in question had had a negative impact on its business activity. An important aspect for the District Court was also the fact that the defendant delegated the preparation of the advertisement to a professional company.
The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal, which ruled partially in its favour. The Court of Appeal shared the view of the District Court and pointed out that the defendant infringed the plaintiff's right to the business name and committed an act of unfair competition.
However, the Court of Appeal emphasized that neither the purpose of the activity nor proving the negative effects of the advertisement are necessary conditions for proving liability. Moreover, the Court of Appeal noted that the defendant should have checked whether the company preparing the advertisement infringed the rights of its competitors .
The defendant filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, claiming that the judgment of the Court of Appeal infringed the law.