Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: MD 2013:12
    • Member State: Sweden
    • Common Name:link
    • Decision type: Court decision in appeal
    • Decision date: 11/07/2013
    • Court: The Swedish Market Court
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff: Plaza Publishing Group AB
    • Defendant: Vårt Nya Förlag Scandinavian AB
    • Keywords: confusion, misleading actions, unfair commercial practices
  • Directive Articles
    Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Article 5, 1. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Article 5, 2. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Article 5, 2., (b) Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 6, 2., (a) Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Annex I, 13.
  • Headnote
    The use of the word "woman" and the design of a logotype do not have such distinctiveness that another trader's use of the same word constitutes misleading commercial practice.
  • Facts
    The plaintiff has been publishing the magazine "Plaza Kvinna" in Sweden since 1997. The magazine's title contains the word "Kvinna" (meaning "woman" in Swedish), which is shown on the front page.

    The defendant has been publishing a magazine named "Magasinet Kvinna" since 2012, also with the word "Woman" on the front page.

    Both the magazines have basically the same target group.
  • Legal issue
    The court firstly assess whether or not the defendant's use of "woman" in the title of its magazine constitutes a copy according to section 13 of the Annex 1 to Directive 2005/29/EC or otherwise is considered a misleading copy.

    The court finds that the word "woman" to a great extent is describing for the magazine's target group. The word "woman" is therefore not intended to distinguish the magazine from other magazines on the market and lacks original distinctiveness. The same applies as regard the typographical design, which is not especially differing form other newspaper titles on the market and thus cannot be said to have distinctiveness.

    The court furthermore finds that the word "woman" on the plaintiff's magazine and/or the typographical design has not become so widely known that they have acquired distinctiveness. The plaintiff has not been able to prove that the word "woman" or its typographical design has acquired commercial distinctiveness by use on the market.

    The plaintiff has also claimed that the defendant is given an unfair benefit by using the plaintiff's good reputation by trying to imitate the plaintiff's magazine's name and font. The court states that the plaintiff has the burden of proof to show that its magazine is so well known on the market that it is connected to the plaintiff's good reputation.

    The court finds that the plaintiff has not shown that customers of magazines in general associate the word "women" and/or its logotype with the plaintiff and its magazine. Thus, the plaintiff has not fulfilled its burden of proof and the defendant's magazine does not constitute unfair commercial practice.
  • Decision

    Do the word "woman" and the design of a logotype have such distinctiveness that another trader's use of the same word constitutes misleading commercial practice?

    URL: http://www.marknadsdomstolen.se/Filer/Avgöranden/Dom2013-12.pdf

    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result
    The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims.