BULGARI CASE SUMMARY
|Subject Heading:||Infringement of Trademark Rights, Unfair Competition, Request for Compensation|
|Case Name and Citation:||
BULGARI S.p.A. and vs. Musa Vergili and Ver-De Kuyumculuk Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti., Case No. 2011/151; Decision No. 2012/42 (4th Istanbul Court of Intellectual and Industrial Rights, March 22, 2012)
|Defendant(s):||1- Mr. Musa Vergili
2- VER-DE KUYUMCULUK Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti.
|Marks Associated with Goods/Services:||
Plaintiff's trademark reg. BVLGARI no. 92205 covering goods in classes 3,9,14,16,18,25 and 34.
|Nature of Case:||
Court action instituted for the stopping of infringement of trademark rights, the prevention of unfair competition as well as determination of material, moral damages as well as damages for harming the reputation.
|Overview of Decision and Ruling:||
*The plaintiff claimed that he is the owner of the Turkish Trademark BVLGARI no. 92205 covering goods in classes 3,9,14,16,18,25 and 34, the trademark is also included in his company title, that the trademark is well known and that the defendant is infringing his trademark rights by manufacturing and selling counterfeit jewelry products. Such counterfeit jewelry products have been confiscated at the premises of the defendant and a penal court action is pending against the defendant company.
*The plaintiff has instituted a court action against Verde Kuyumculuk and Mr. Musa Vergili asking for both the destruction of the seized products as well as molds, the stopping of any infringement and compensation for the loss of income, as well as a preliminary injunction against the release of the seized products.
*The defendant Mr. Musa Vergili asked for the rejection of the court action as his act of manufacturing and sale of the products has not materialized since the products were not put on the market either in wholesale or retail, claiming that the defendant’s damage claims are very high and the act of counterfeiting goods has not been retained for penalty within the penal court action instituted separately.
*The court action was originally instituted before the Beyoğlu Court and after the closure of this court, has been transferred to the 4th Istanbul Court.
*In light of the evidence submitted by the parties both within the scope of this action as well as the penal action instituted before the 1st Penal Court of First Instance and of the experts report dated March 14, 2011, which are mostly in plaintiff’s favor, The Court has determined that:
The Court has ruled to:
|Importance of Case:||
The decision is important in three aspects:
|Contributing Firm:||Deris Attorneys At Law Partnership|