{"id":9924,"date":"2022-08-25T11:59:54","date_gmt":"2022-08-25T11:59:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.danubia.com\/uncategorized-hu\/trademark-and-domain-name-infringement\/"},"modified":"2022-09-09T11:25:53","modified_gmt":"2022-09-09T11:25:53","slug":"trademark-and-domain-name-infringement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.danubia.com\/hu\/trademark-hu\/trademark-and-domain-name-infringement\/","title":{"rendered":"TRADEMARK AND DOMAIN NAME INFRINGEMENT"},"content":{"rendered":"

FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

The applicant is owner of a word mark and two word-and-device marks each comprising the term \u201cHaszn\u00e1ltaut\u00f3\u201d [meaning: \u201dsecond hand car\u201d], registered in class 35 for advertisement, in class 38 for telecommunication services and in class 41 for entertainment services. Moreover, he is owner of an identical domain name. The defendant is owner of a similar domain name used for internet advertisement of cars.<\/p>\n

The claimant sued for trademark infringement and unfair competition. The Metropolitan Tribunal said that with his advertisement the defendant infringed the claimant\u2019s trademark and condemned him for trademark infringement. Further, the Tribunal said that the suffix \u201cfor sale\u201d figuring in the defendant\u2019s advertisements is not sufficient to make a distinction from the mark of the claimant. Therefore, the domain name used by the defendant can be confused with claimant\u2019s mark.\u00a0 (As the Tribunal condemned the defendant for trademark infringement, it did not examine the claim for unfair competition.)<\/p>\n

The defendant filed an appeal with the Metropolitan Court of Appeal, but this was rejected. The Court approved the grounds stated by the Tribunal and added that the defendant\u2019s advertisements, informing the public using the claimant\u2019s device mark constituted unfair competition, too. Moreover, the Court said that though the word component of the figurative mark had no inherent distinctive character, in a procedure of cancellation against the claimant\u2019s mark, it had been established that the mark has acquired distinctiveness through its intensive use.<\/p>\n

The defendant requested revision with the Supreme Court, but this was also rejected. The Supreme Court approved the grounds presented by the two lower instances but completed the operative clause of their judgement with the statement that infringement was also committed by using the domain name of the claimant (Pfv.IV.20.700\/2018).<\/p>\n

Comments<\/em><\/p>\n

It is interesting to state that every instance dealing with the case hereabove reported went a step further than the previous instance, namely:<\/p>\n