The French Bongrain company is owner of 11 Hungarian national marks and a CTM one with the term and figure of MEDVE (BEAR) which is reputed and appreciated by the Hungarian public, considering good quality of the cheese for which it is used and for the long use of the mark.

ERU Hungaria, after making preliminary publicity, launched a new product called "MEDVEhagymás" (with BEAR's onion). This was of course harmful for the trademark owner, considering dilution of his mark. Finally ERU Hungaria, following several warning letters by the attorney of the trademark owner, Danubia Patent & Law Office, ceased to sell the product with the name in the contested form, destroyed the contested package and continued to sell the product under the name "medvehagymás" (with bear's onion). Nevertheless they refused to recover the costs of the trademark owner (discovery, watching the market, subsequent checking of the market, legal procedure etc.).

As a result the owner of the mark MEDVE filed a suit for the recovery of his cost. Moreover, in hope of an amicable settlement, during the suit he abandoned his claim for damages. Despite of this, the case was not settled amicably. The Metropolitan Court condemned the defendant to pay HUF 1.000.000 for the legal costs and to publish the operative part of the judgment on defendant's costs in the newspaper Népszabadság. In its opinion the Court says i.e. that relating to the sign MEDVEhagymás (with BEAR's onion) it is not unequivocal for the customer that he sees a product which is a cheese flavoured by bear's onion and on which the mark MEDVE (bear) figures.

The defendant appealed only to request reduction of procedural costs, and the Metropolitan Court of Appeal reduced these to HUF 600.000 (8.Pf.20.263/2011  26. May 2011).

The operative part of the judgment of the Metropolitan Court was published in the newspaper Népszabadság on 20. June 2011.

Comments

The case is an example of cunning way of infringement: in the word combination "with BEAR's onion" the term BEAR was presented emphasized, as a result there was a danger of misleading the consumers. This kind of infringement was ceased after the warning by the owner of the mark BEAR (Medve), as a result, the Court had only the task to make the juridical "purification". As a consequence, the case is more interesting from the marketing aspect as for the legal one: it illustrates the sensible reaction of trademark owners even to cunning attempts for use of similar signs.

A. Vida