trademark infringement allegationAn infringement action based on Article 76, paragraph 1, item 1, item 2, item 3 from the Bulgarian Law on Marks and Geographical indications* in relation with Article 86, paragraph 1 from the Obligations and Contracts Act** filed against Megachim has been rejected as unfounded by the Sofia City Court.

The plaintiff claimed that IP Consulting’s client had been infringing it’s registered trademark 15939 ФАСАГЕН (registered for goods in class 02: Paints, facade paints) by putting a similar or identical word sign on packaging labels of goods produced by him, offering them for sale, placing them on the market, storing them for these purposes, and using the sign in commercial papers and advertisements.

Megachim objectied that the sign used in its commercial activities was its registered trademark 44549 MEGACHIM Megafasagena (also registered for goods in class 02: Paints, facade paints). According to the expert opinion testimony, supported by the court, all elements of this registered brand were included in the word sign used by the defendant on its packaging labels.

Morevover, it was found that both the above mentioned sign and the trademark 15939 ФАСАГЕН differ phonetically, visually and conceptually and no similarity or identity of the sign used by the defendant and the brand registered by the plaintiff could be established.

As the presented evidence failed to prove the trademark infringement allegation, the Sofia City Court ruled in favor of IP Consulting’s client Megachim.


* Infringement Actions

Art. 76. (1) Infringement actions under this Law may relate to:
(i) establishment of the fact of infringement;
(ii) suspension of the act of infringement;
(iii) compensation for damages suffered;

**Art. 86. (1) In case of non-performance of a monetary obligation, the debtor shall be liable for damages to the amount of the interest accrued from the date of default. For greater losses actually incurred a creditor may claim damages in accordance with the general rules.