In a recently published decision, the Court of Appeal 11th Civil
Chamber ("Court of Appeal") quashed the
First Instance Court's decision to decline a plaintiff's
preliminary injunction request. The plaintiff claimed that the
defendant's website would appear in the search results when the
plaintiff's trademark and/or domain name was entered into a
popular search engine. The Court of Appeal found the expert report
available to the First Instance Court during determination of
evidence had established grounds for granting the preliminary
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant is infringing trademark
rights by using the plaintiff's trademark as a search engine
key-word. The plaintiff claimed the defendant receives more visits
to its website as a result and has increased its sales, causing
revenue loss for the plaintiff as well as creating unfair
competition. The plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to cease
continued infringement while the court heard the plaintiff's
The defendant claimed it was not using the plaintiff's
trademark as a key-word and accordingly sought rejection of the
action and preliminary injunction request.
The First Instance Court rejected the plaintiff's
preliminary injunction request, stating that the situation requires
judgment and did not fulfill the legal requirements for granting a
preliminary injunction decision. The plaintiff appealed to the
Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal quashed the First Instance Court's
decision on the basis that during the determination of evidence
process, the expert report indicated that when the plaintiff's
trademark was typed into the relevant search engine, the
defendant's website appeared in the search results. The Court
of Appeal held that the circumstances met the requirements for
ranting a preliminary injunction (Article 76 and 77 of Decree Law
556; Article 389 of the Civil Procedure Law).
Case reference: Yarg. 11. HD. 30.04.2013, 2013/5646 E.,
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
1.The trade mark shall not entitle the proprietor to prohibit its use in relation to goods which have been put on the market in the Community under that trade mark by the proprietor or with his consent.
The UK government has not yet invoked Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (this is likely to happen by the end of March), and the UK's actual exit from the European Union is at least two years away.
Without doubt Malta offers significant opportunities for the generics drugs Industry and the
evidence for this lies in the pharmaceutical patenting history of the country and in its legislative
In a landmark judgment, the High Court has granted a novel type of declaratory relief to clear the route to market for a product facing a raft of pending patent applications...
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).