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.
The focus on the product being obvious or anticipated as at a certain date provides powerful protection and commercial certainty without conflicting with a patentee's ability to obtain patent protection.
Following the UK Government's announcement that it will ratify the Unified Patent Court Agreement, the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court (UPC) are expected to go live in December 2017.
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).