The SAC supports the conclusion of the court of first instance that the mark METRO has been famous for the territory of Bulgaria since 18.03.1999, the date on which the first two stores of the retail chain opened their doors, as well as due to the intense advertising campaign which started as early as October 1998.

The initial application for registration at a national level was filed by the company Rahovets-2007 – Gorna Oryahovitsa on 06.03.2008. It contained 113 pages amongst which historical documents, photos and maps, kept mainly at the Museum of History of Gorna Oryahovitsa, as well as evidence of the history of the product, its continuous presence, relation to the city of Gorna Oryahovitsa, qualities and market reputation. According to historical data, Gornooryahovski Sudzhuk was produced more than two centuries ago, and it won its first medal at a fair in Paris in 1900.

Upon successful completion of the national registration procedure, on 09.12.2008, the case was referred to the European Commission for registration at a European level. The application was subject to publication in the Official Journal of the EU on 26.03.2010 and as of that date, the rest of the Member States and third parties were availed with a six month term to oppose the registration. Objections were raised only by Cyprus on the grounds that the name of Gornooryahovski sudzhuk resembles that of the famous sweet, made with lokum, called “sudzhu” – walnut kernels threaded together and dipped in lokum. Confusion on the part of consumers is hardly probable though, as one of the products is confectionery whereas the other is a meat product. On June 21^st, 2011, Cyprus withdrew its objections.

As of January 11^th, 2012, only three Bulgarian companies have the right to produce Gornooryahovski sudzhuk, from a total of 183 meat processing companies that have been delivering the product. The companies are members of the partnership RAHOVETS-2007, more specifically, ET STEFMARK – Stefan Markov, R.A. – 03 – Bobi OOD and Rodopa – Gorna Oryahovitsa-96 EOOD.

Six other famous Bulgarian meat products are currently awaiting recognition for the territory of Europe. Applications for registration as geographical indications have been filed also with regard to the jerked meat fillet “Elena”, meat roll “Trapezitsa”, meat neck “Trakiya” and “Panagyurska lukanka” (flat sausage from the region of Panagyurishte).

Source: Customs Agency

The subject matter of the proceeding before the Sofia Appellate Court is an appeal, lodged by the famous Japanese company C.K.K., against the decision of the Court of first instance, with which the Sofia City Court rejects the claims under Art. 76, par. 1, item 1 and item 2 of the LMGI against a Bulgarian company importing for the territory of Bulgaria goods designated under the mark of the plaintiff without the plaintiff’s consent. 

The Court of first instance dismissed the claims with the argument that the defendant did not actually “import” goods designated under the plaintiff’s registered mark, and that the goods at issue should have been placed under “transit” regime, as the same were intended for a Serbian company.

The appellate court accepted that the existence of the explicit provision of § 1, item 12 of the Additional Provisions of the LMGI, which gives a legal definition of the term “import” within the meaning of Art. 13 of the LMGI, excludes the application by analogy of the provisions of the Customs Act, where the term “import” is used in its sense of being one of the nine types of customs regimes under which the goods crossing the borders of Bulgaria are placed. 

The Sofia Appellate Court also found that within the meaning of Art. 13, par. 2, item 2 of the LMGI, the placement of the goods under “transit” regime shall also be considered as “import” of the goods, respectively use of the mark, for the goods are actually transferred across the border in this case as well. In view of the certainty that the goods at issue crossed the Bulgarian border, the defendant performed an action under Art. 13, par. 2, item 3 of the LMGI. 

On the grounds of above arguments, the Sofia Appellate Court overturned the decision of the court of first instance in its entirety and recognized as established, in respect of the defendant, the fact of infringement of the exclusive right over the plaintiff’s trademark. The defendant was sentenced to terminate the infringement.

The proceeding was initiated at the request of Navteq Corporation, USA, one of the leaders on the world market of navigation systems and software, which advertises its activity via the domain www.navteq.com, with a registration dating back to 2003.

On its part, the company SB Group EAD is engaged in providing geodesic and cartographic services, trade with devices for personal and auto navigation, under the mark “Naviteq”. The company registered the domain www.naviteq.net in 2005.  

The CPC deems that, regardless of the fact that the first part of the domain of SB Group EAD coincides with the word element of its registered combined mark “Naviteq”, the choice and use of a domain name, belonging to an established world market leader, creates actual prerequisites for the occurrence of confusion on the part of the consumer.

The CPC rejects the defendant’s argument that the mark, and respectively the domain name www.naviteq.net, originate from the generic name of the products – “navigation technologies”. In both domains, the final letter is q, not ch, the latter being the grammatically logical combination of letters. This spelling specificity of the used name “naviteq” is indicative of the registration of the domain name in bad faith. Furthermore, the defendant uses on the home page of the website only the name of its trademark.   

Source: Commission for Protection of Competition

During the proceeding, it was established that since the end of February 2011, for a period of 2 months and 16 days, the defendant had been distributing the pharmaceutical product «Aspetin Protect Adipharm», with overall very similar appearance to the product «Aspirin Protect» of Bayer. From the end of 2006 until the beginning of 2011, Adipharm was offering on the market the drug «Trombogard», analogous to «Aspetin Protect».

The CPC deems that the deliberate change in the name is an additional proof that the defendant was aiming to resemble the popular product of Bayer.

When determining the sanction, the Commission took into consideration the character and the short period of infringement, as well as the economic condition of the company, and was led by its understanding that the sanction should have the character of a preventive measure against future bad faith actions.

Source: Commission for Protection of Competition

Source: the Patent Office of Republic of Bulgaria

The Law Office of Bojinov & Bojinov represented a Taiwanese company, which has its trademark for machine and hand tools established on both the world and Bulgarian markets since the beginning of the 90s. The purpose of the proceeding was the ascertainment of bad faith on the part of a Bulgarian company at the time of filing of an application for a trademark, which is similar to the mark registered in the name of the Plaintiff. 

Having considered the collected evidence jointly and severally, the court established that the Defendant is engaged in the import of ironware, instruments, electrical materials, i.e. its activity is identical with that of the Plaintiff. 

The court accepted that the Defendant had acted in bad faith, within the meaning of Art. 26, par. 3, item 4 of the LMGI, as the same had been aware of the use of the mark by another party, on the Bulgarian market as well, and had made an attempt to conduct joint business activities with the Plaintiff prior to the date of registration of the contested mark, which is evident from the presented correspondence between the Defendant’s representative and the Plaintiff.

In view of the evidence, the court rejected the thesis of the Defendant that the mark was a result of a random idea and accepted as established, in respect of the Defendant, that the latter had acted in bad faith toward the Plaintiff when filing the application for registration of the challenged mark.  

The new texts are synchronized with the amendments to the Law on Industrial Designs, which are in force as of February 12^th, 2011. The texts limit the examination only to check of the appearance of the product or a part thereof determined by the peculiarities of the shape, lines, drawing, ornaments and color combination, as well as to the evaluation of the likelihood that the product might be contrary to the public order and good ethics.

Another amendment is the removal of the requirement for publication of the application for industrial design prior to examination thereof. Amendments are introduced also in the provisions concerning the procedure on the issuance of a total and partial refusal of registration of an industrial design. This facilitates the applicant’s assessment as to the scope of legal protection sought through the application.  

Provisions are proposed also with regard to a thorough regulation of the new procedure for delayed publication of a registered industrial design. 

Another amendment relates to shortening of the terms for payment of fees, as well as to those for correction of any deficiencies of the application and for response to a provisional refusal, the purpose being acceleration of the registration procedure.

The amendments are effective as of July 12^th, 2011.

The operation was realized due to the good co-operation between Bulgarian and foreign customs authorities, which were keeping track of the shipment’s movement from Egypt to Bulgaria for 12 days.

In general more than 162 million pieces of cigarettes intended for illegal distribution have been seized by the Bulgarian Customs Agency during the first seven months of 2011.

 The value of the cigarettes seized so far is estimated at 2 million levs, but according to the Customs Agency, the losses for Bulgaria would have been between 5 and 6 million leva in case of realization of the cigarettes without paid excise duty on the legal market.