Съдебна практика

  • Данни за случая
    • Национален идентификатор: 11724/2010, VII d.
    • Държава-членка: България
    • Общоприето наименование:N/A
    • Вид решение: Решение на върховния съд
    • Дата на решението: 14/06/2011
    • Съд: Върховен административен съд (София)
    • Заглавие:
    • Ищец: Consumer Protection Commission
    • Ответник: BDS – Bulgarian Delicacy Standard OOD
    • Ключови думи: confusing marketing, deceiving commercial practice, false impression, quality mark, trade mark
  • Членове от директивата
    Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 6, 1., (b) Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 6, 2., (a)
  • Уводна бележка
    Labeling that contains factually correct information is nevertheless deceiving if its overall presentation is capable of misleading the average consumer about the characteristics of the product and, thus, to influence the consumer’s transactional decision. Such labeling constitutes a misleading commercial practice.
  • Факти
    The abbreviation in the first part of the defendant’s trade mark – “BDS” – was identical to an abbreviation previously used to attest the quality of products manufactured in Bulgaria and approved by the government. The defendant printed its trade mark on labels in a way that stressed the analogy with this quality certification standard.

    The plaintiff, a consumer authority, considered that the labeling in question constituted a misleading commercial practice and imposed a ban. According to the plaintiff, the label led consumers to the impression that the defendant’s products were quality certified under the Bulgarian state quality standards.
  • Правен въпрос
    Can labeling of a product be misleading and constitute a misleading commercial practice, even when it only contains factually correct information (e.g. trade mark of a trader)?
  • Решение

    In a short reasoning, the court established that the labeling was deceiving, although it only contained factually correct information.

    The court pointed out that the overall presentation of a product may mislead the average consumer. 

    An average consumer, so the court stated, could think that the product was certified for quality under the Bulgarian state quality standards, because the defendant's trade mark was presented in a way similar to a previously used state certificate of quality.

    URL: http://www.sac.government.bg/court22.nsf/d6397429a99ee2afc225661e00383a86/cf1d8ee2cf03c573c22578a7003648e0?OpenDocument

    Пълен текст: Пълен текст

  • Свързани случаи

    Няма налични резултати

  • Правна литература

    Няма налични резултати

  • Резултат
    The court upheld the plaintiff’s findings and the ban on deceiving commercial practice.