Search results

Selected filters:


Article type



143 results found for your search

Sort options
17 May 2019

Supreme Court clarifies conditions for existence of legal interest in non-infringement action

In a dispute between wine and spirits producers Kantina and Adol, the Slovenian Supreme Court has set aside the first and second-instance decisions, which had rejected a non-infringement action filed by Kantina on formal grounds.

01 May 2019

SIPO’s 2018 annual report shows decline in national applications

The Slovenian Intellectual Property Office has recently published its annual report for 2018, which shows a decline in national patent, trademark and design applications – with the most significant drop being observed in the number of national design applications.

24 August 2018

A-Z of EU trademark court practice and performance: Netherlands to Slovenia

In the fourth of our five-part series, trademark counsel from law firms across Europe provide an overview of the performance of their countries’ EU trademark courts over the past two years.

04 July 2018

Higher Court: imitating the appearance of a restaurant constitutes unfair competition

In a significant decision, Slovenia’s Higher Court has, for the first time, granted protection to the trade dress of a restaurant based on unfair competition.

09 March 2017

Higher Court finds forwarding agent liable for infringement

In Universal City Studios LLC v Jadroagent International dd, the Higher Court has held that a forwarding agent was liable for copyright and trademark infringement, and ordered it to reimburse the rights holder’s storage and destruction costs. This judgment is significant as it imposes stricter liability on forwarding agents, forcing them to be involved in the prevention of trademark and/or copyright infringement.

20 June 2016

Defendant's failure to disclose scope of infringement results in damages

In Coty Germany GmbH v Piskar Klavdija sp the Ljubljana Higher Court has awarded the full amount of claimed damages to the plaintiff. The court held that in infringement damages cases the burden of proof for the scope of infringement must be shifted to the defendant, and that the defendant had failed to meet this burden.

25 January 2016

Plaintiff's legal interest in non-use trademark cancellation equals public interest in removing unused trademarks from register

In a recently released decision the Ljubljana Higher Court held that a plaintiff's legal interest in non-use cancellation of a trademark which had not actually been used should always be recognised, although Article 120(1) of the Industrial Property Act appears to provide that only parties with a specific interest can request cancellation.

14 January 2016

Individual online purchases and mail delivery constitute trademark infringement

The judgment in Rolex SA v Dragica Poric is significant because it marks the first time that a Slovenian court has ruled that online purchases on a foreign website which are imported into Slovenia constitute infringement.

17 July 2015

Higher Court: forwarding agent is jointly and severally liable for infringement with importer

In Louis Vuitton v Interkop, the Higher Court has held that a forwarding agent is jointly and severally liable for infringement with the importer of the infringing goods, and that both companies are jointly and severally liable for arranging the destruction of the infringing goods at their own expense under customs supervision. The decision should make it easier for trademark holders to enforce their rights by suing the forwarding agents.

19 May 2015

Number of customs detentions increase, value of detained goods decrease in 2014

According to a report issued by the Financial Administration of the Republic of Slovenia, customs officials recorded 4,053 detentions in 2014, which is the highest number of temporary customs detention cases to date. The number of infringing items detained in 2014 more than doubled compared to 2013, but the estimated value of the goods decreased from almost €19 million in 2013 to €12.5 million in 2014.

01 April 2015

SIPO: limitation of goods/services within class not possible at renewal

In a decision concerning the renewal of the national trademark EVA, the Slovenian Intellectual Property Office has decided that it is not possible to limit the list of goods and services within a class when applying for the renewal of a trademark registration, even though Article 52(3) of the Industrial Property Act explicitly states that it is possible to do so.

05 February 2015

Supreme Court issues landmark decision in cancellation action

In Terraco AB v Calcit doo, the Supreme Court has held that the lack of use of a CTM in Slovenia does not constitute a ground for rejecting an invalidation action against a national trademark based on that CTM. The decision is significant as it is the first time that a Slovenian court has considered this issue.

05 November 2014

Earlier CTM loses priority date after being converted into national trademark

SIPO has held that an opposition against the registration of the mark DIPLOMAT - a CTM converted into a Slovenian mark - was deemed not to have been filed, because the mark on which the opposition was based - DIPLOMATICO, also a CTM converted into a Slovenian mark - was not an earlier mark under Article 44(2)(a) of the Industrial Property Act. Both marks were found to have the same application date - that is, the day on which Slovenia joined the European Union.

24 October 2014

Supreme Court rules on destruction and storage costs in customs cases

The Supreme Court has issued an important decision in a case involving the detention of a large shipment of counterfeit cosmetic products bearing the mark of a well-known multinational consumer goods company, in transit through Slovenia to another EU member state. The decision addressed the issue of whether it was possible to claim storage and destruction costs from infringers.

06 October 2014

Court shifts burden of proof to defendant in parallel import case

In Coty Germany GmbH v Piskar Klavdija sp, the Circuit Court of Ljubljana has held that products whose serial numbers and bar codes had been removed were not considered to be genuine, unless the alleged infringer could prove that they had legally been put on the relevant market by the trademark holder.