Euroopan oikeusportaali - Oikeuskäytäntö

Tapaustiedot
- Kansallinen tunniste: Market Court, Judgement 46/20
- Jäsenvaltio: Suomi
- Lyhytnimi:N/A
- Päätöksen tyyppi: Muu
- Päätöksen päivämäärä: 13/02/2020
- Tuomioistuin: Markkinaoikeus
- Aihe:
- Kantaja:
- Vastaaja:
- Avainsanat: Unfair business practices, temporary ban

Laajenna kaikki|Supista kaikki

Direktiivin artiklat

Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 4 Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 4 Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, Article 5
Ylähuomautus

Blue Water Shipping Oy ("BWS") requested the Market Court to temporarily prohibit X-WK Logistics Oy Ab ("X-WK") from continuing or renewing a conduct in relation to X-WK’s marketing which BWS considered to infringe its rights. To strengthen the prohibitions, BWS further requested the Market Court to impose a penalty payment of EUR 50,000. The Market Court rejected BWS’ claims because it held that BWS had failed to provide sufficiently probable grounds to support the prohibitions.
Taustatiedot

According to BSW, X-WK had (1) imitated BWS’ marketing material in detail, (2) marketed itself as a reincarnation of Wikeström & Krogius who was one of the best known and most respected brands in the field, and (3) marketed itself to Wärtsilä Corporation as almost the same company as Wikeström & Krogius was at the time.
Oikeudellinen kysymys

The question before the Market Court was whether the provisions of the Unfair Business Practices Act (1061/1978) on the violation of good business practice were present so that a temporary prohibition could be imposed to X-WK. Secondly, the question before the Market Court was whether X-WK had unlawfully used and disclosed BWS’ trade secrets.
Ratkaisu

BWS claimed that (1) X-WK had no right to take advantage of the reputation of BWS’ marketing material, (2) X-WK’s references to Wikeström & Krogius and its reincarnation as X-WK were misleading and untrue because all rights to Wikeström & Krogius were owned by BWS, and (3) X-WK had no right to take advantage of the reputation and reincarnation of Wikeström & Krogius, now BWS. The Market Court held that BWS’ claims were not based on sufficiently probable grounds for imposing a temporary prohibition. Regarding the imitation of BWS’ marketing, X-WK informed the Market Court that they had changed the marketing material, and therefore the Market Court considered it probable that X-WK would not continue or renew the use of similar marketing in the future. Therefore, a temporary prohibition was not needed regarding this aspect. The Market Court further held that BWS’ other claims failed to sufficiently specify which expressions and which use and disclosure of trade secrets were to be prohibited.

Koko teksti: Koko teksti
Asiaan liittyvät tapaukset

Ei tuloksia saatavilla
Oikeuskirjallisuus

Ei tuloksia saatavilla
Hakutulos

The Market Court held that BWS’ claims were not based on sufficiently probable grounds for imposing a temporary prohibition on X-WK and rejected BWS’ claims.

Oikeuskäytäntö

Koko teksti