Regarding distributor’s lawsuit:
Former distributor claimed, among others, the recognition by the Court of the exclusive use of the distinctive sign/well known trademark owned by the supplier and the continuation of the distributorship agreement, which was terminated by the supplier, because the distributor registered the supplier’s trademark on the distributor’s name.
The Court rejected distributor’s lawsuit in its entirety.
Regarding supplier’s lawsuit:
The Court obliged the former distributor to cease and desist in the future from using the supplier’s trademarks, because it gave the misleading impression to consumers that his/her enterprise is still acting as supplier’s exclusive distributor, although the distributorship agreement was terminated by the supplier for cause.
The Court obliged, among others, the distributor to destroy all signage bearing supplier’s trademark.
Moreover, the Court ordered the publication of the operative part of the decision in newspapers at former distributor’s expense.
Nikos Grigoriadis argued for the supplier.
