In a dispute between a supplier and a former distributor, the Court ruled that the use by former distributor of the signage containing supplier’s well-known trademarks is not legitimate, due to the termination of the distributorship agreement. It also ruled that such use supersedes distributor’s right to inform consumers that it sells supplier’s products, while it gives the false and misleading impression that distributor’s business is still an official dealer of supplier’s selective distribution car network. According to the Court, such use constitutes exploitation of trademarks’ advertising function. Such exploitation could be avoided if the former distributor used only the wording of said trademarks with the indications “non – specialized” in proportion and with letters of the same size, typography, and colour with the wording of said trademark.
The Court ordered the former distributor to cease and desist in the future from the use of plaintiffs’ trademarks and to stop giving to consumers the false impression that its business still belongs to supplier’s selective distribution network, imposing a monetary penalty of € 3.000 for each future infringement of that order. The Court also ordered the former distributor to pay the plaintiff moral damages amounting to € 8.000. Moreover, the Court ordered the publication of the operative part of the decision in two newspapers at defendant’s expense.
Nikos Grigoriadis argued for plaintiffs-proprietors of the well-known trademarks.
