The Court ruled that defendant’s products are very similar to plaintiff’s products in textile, design, colours, shape, and decorative elements, and that despite the use of different decorative elements in the same position as in the products of the plaintiff, such differentiation is not capable of distinguishing the products. Therefore, the Court considered that the defendant’s products give to consumers and internet users the misleading impression that there is a business cooperation between the defendant and the plaintiff.
The Court ordered the defendant to: i. provisionally cease and desist from marketing and distributing of said products; ii. recall temporarily all said products and every material on which these products are depicted; and iii. to submit to the plaintiff a list of all the recalled quantities. In case the defendant does not proceed to the recall of the products, the Court authorized the plaintiff to proceed to the recall on defendant’s expenses.
The Court imposed a monetary penalty of € 3.000 for each future infringement of the above-mentioned order by the defendant.
Nikos Grigoriadis co-represented the plaintiff.