Search results

Selected filters:

Slovenia
Enforcement and Litigation

Article type

Topic

Sector

16 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.

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.

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.

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.

03 September 2013

Import of infringing goods into EU through Slovenia constitutes infringement

In Louis Vuitton Malletier Société Anonyme v Interkop 2006 doo, the Circuit Court of Ljubljana has decided for the first time on the scope of jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts in cases where infringing goods are imported into the European Union through Slovenia, but are destined to another EU state.

20 March 2013

Higher Court issues surprising decision regarding storage and destruction costs

In a recent case involving the seizure of infringing goods by Customs, the Higher Court in Ljubljana has issued a controversial decision that was contrary to the established practice of ordering the defendant to pay the costs of the storage and destruction of the infringing goods. This unexpected decision could discourage, or even prevent, IP rights holders from recovering storage and destruction costs.

08 January 2013

Intellectual Property Office joins Seniority Project

The Slovenian Intellectual Property Office has implemented the Seniority Project, a joint project between OHIM and the patent and trademark offices of EU member states. The project aims to establish links among the seniority data in the national and Community databases and make this information accessible online.

13 July 2011

Registered company name may infringe trademark

In Elektro Ljubljana dd v Zelena Energija doo, the Circuit Court in Ljubljana has rejected Elektro Ljubljana dd’s action for a declaration of invalidity of the company name Zelena Energija. However, the court held for the first time that it is possible to obtain the removal of a company name from the register pursuant to a trademark infringement action.

31 July 2009

Anti-piracy and counterfeiting working group established

Slovenia has established an inter-sectoral working group for the fight against piracy and counterfeiting. The aim is to promote greater cooperation between the various state authorities that are involved in the enforcement of IP rights. One of the tasks of the working group is to raise the level of protection of IP rights.

26 March 2008

SIPO's request for review rejected by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has rejected a request for review of an Administrative Court decision filed by the Slovenian Intellectual Property Office. The Supreme Court held that SIPO had no legal standing to request the review under the provisions of the new Act on Administrative Disputes.