News & Press

News

2008-04-23 DECISION No. 4867, Sofia, 23.04.2008, from The Supreme Administrative Court of the Republic of Bulgarua in a chamber of five - II college IT REJECTS the claim by Diageo Brands B.V., Justerini and Brooks Ltd., and R&A Bailey and Co. against decision No. 136 dated 22.06.2006 of the Commission for Protection of Competition as per record No. KZK-73 of 2005, which imposes Diageo Brands B.V., Justerini and Brooks Ltd., and R&A Bailey and Co., for violation of Art.9, para. 1, item 2 of CPA,a pecuniary sanction in the amount of 200000 BGN to each of them. THE DECISION IS NOT SUBJECT TO APPEAL

2006-11-21 Enactment of termination of criminal proceeding city of Varna, 13.11.2006 from regional prosecution office – Varna in which is saying that within the period 2001 – 2005 the manager of BeGeIn Limited GEORGI GEORGIEV YORDANOV had not implemented violation of Trademarks and Geographic Symbols Act and respectively had not perpetrated an illegal action pursuant article 227 of the Criminal Code.

2006-08-21 Resolution from the Sofia City Court dated 21 August 2006 REJECTS the pleas of JIM BEAM BRANDS CO./ JIM BEAM BRANDS CO./ against “BE GE IN” SINGLE MEMBER LTD, the legal grounds of which pleas is Art. 76, Par. 1, item 1, item 2, item 3 of TMGDA in relation with Art. 73, Par. 1 of TMGDA for the establishment of the fact of the violation of his right over trade marks: owned by JIM BEAM BRANDS CO. TERMINATES the proceedings in the part on the pleas with legal grounds Art. 76, Par. 1, item 1, item 2, item 3 of TMGDA in relation with Art. 73, Par. 1 of TMGDA and the demands on Art. 76 Par. 2 item 1of TMGDA, filed by “Maxium Bulgaria” Single Member Ltd, against “BE GE IN” Single Member Ltd.

2006-07-24 Customs Agency ignores the legal provisions! Despite Verdict No. 249/2006 of the Supreme Court of Cassation (SCC) and Verdict No. 136/2006 of the Commission for the Protection of Competition (CPC), Customs Agency apply again the border control measures by detaining goods as per Unified Administrative Document (UAD) 2005/7-1389 dated 11.07.2006 and more specifically 20 cartons of whiskey of the J&B brand.

2006-07-17 Decision No. 136/22.06.06 from The Commission for the Protection of Competition in Republic of Bulgaria: 1. To impose a BGN 200 000 (about EUR 100 000) pecuniary sanction on DIAGEO BRANDS BV ( Guinness United Distillers and Vintners Amsterdam BV), for infringement of Article 9, paragraph 1, item 2 of the Protection of Competition Act; 2. To impose a BGN 200 000 (about EUR 100 000) pecuniary sanction on JUSTERINI & BROOKS Ltd., for infringement of Article 9, paragraph 1, item 2 of the Protection of Competition Act; 3. To impose a BGN 200 000 (about EUR 100 000) pecuniary sanction on R&A Bailey &Co., for infringement of Article 9, paragraph 1, item 2 of the Protection of Competition Act; 4. To state the cessation of the infringements per items 1, 2, and 3.

2006-04-18 Speculations of the trademark owner "Justerini & Brooks Limited" in the Bulgarian market Summarising, “Justerini & Brooks Limited” fight the so-called “parallel import”, which is allowed in the EU and does not infringe their trademark right, with their goal being the imposing of a monopoly on the market, which intention of theirs has ended with no result for yet another Bulgarian company, which has won the suit in the Supreme Court of Cassation in Bulgaria, but still the problem remains for all those companies, who haven’t covered the long distance of the lawsuits yet, and at the same time “Justerini & Brooks Limited” continue to accumulate huge profits as the sole importer in Bulgaria, owing to the prevailing and monopoly conditions, imposed by them. >>>

2006-03-22 Decision No. 249/22.03.2006 from the The Supreme Court of Cassation about the case between trademark owner "Justerini & Brooks Limited" versus the parallel importer "BEGEIN Limited" The Supreme Court of Cassation in Republic of Bulgaria REJECTS the claims presented by “Justerini & Brooks Limited” - London, Great Britain, against “Begein” Ltd. – Varna for assertion on the grounds of Art. 76, paragraph 1, item 1 of LTGI in connection with Art. 73, paragraph 1 and Art. 13, paragraph 2, item 3 of LTGI of the fact of infringement of right to the “J&B” trademark right - in words, reg. No. 27694, property of “Justerini & Brooks Limited”, London, Great Britain, through import of 1200 bottles of whisky with this trademark by “Begein’ Ltd. – Varna, without the appellant’s permission, who is the trademark owner; the claim for conviction under Art. 76, paragraph 1, item 2 of LTGI of the appellee to discontinue the violation by not realising any import of goods under the “J&B” trademark without the appellant’s consent and the claim under Art. 76, paragraph 2, item 1 of LTGI for destruction of goods with the “J&B” trademark – 1200 bottles of whisky. >>>

2004-12-27 Decision No. 1071/03.12.2004 from the The Supreme Court of Cassation about the case between trademark owners “Guinness United Distillers and Vintners Amsterdam BV” – Amsterdam, Holland and “Justerini and Brooks Limited”- London, England against “Galas Trading” Single Member Limited - Sofia, Bulgaria The Supreme Court of Cassation HAS RULED: REAFFIRMS THE EFFECT of decree dated 3 December 2003 in relation to civil case No.335/2003 of the Sofia Court of appeals. SENTENCES Guinness United Distillers and Vintners Amsterdam B.V. – Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and Justerini and Brooks Limited – London, England, with court registration in the city of Sofia, Borislav Boyanov, attorney-at-law, 24 Evtimii Blvd., to pay to Galas Trading Ltd. – city of Sofia, 3000 BGN – expenses incurred for the cassation case.

2004-11-12 Decision No. 9218/10.11.2004 from the Supreme Administrative Court of the Republic of Bulgaria about complaint of “Guiness United Distillers and Vintners Amsterdam BV” – The Netherlands, “Justerini and Brooks Limited” – England and “R and A Bailey & Co” – Ireland, all three companies from the Diageo Group, against article 1, paragraph 5, offer 1 of the Regulation for border measures for protection of intellectual property rights, adopted by means of Decree of the Ministerial Council No. 249/27.11.2000 The Supreme Administrative Court of the Republic of Bulgaria HAS REPUDIATED as unfounded the complaint of “Guiness United Distillers and Vintners Amsterdam BV” – The Netherlands, “Justerini and Brooks Limited” – England and “R and A Bailey and Co” – Ireland, all three companies members of the Diageo Group for revoking of article 1, paragraph 5, offer 1 of the Regulation for border measures for protection of intellectual property rights, adopted by means of Decree of the Ministerial Council No. 249/27.11.2000, published, SG, issue 98/01.12.2000, amendment and addition, issue 88/07.10.2003

Press Releases

Nestle smells the coffee in parallel trade ruling By Emma Barraclough, Managing Intellectual Property Magazine, London, UK, 14th August 2006 Australia's competition watchdog has thwarted Nestle's attempts to cut supplies of its products to a discount supermarket chain in Australia after the chain imported and sold cheaper versions of the Swiss company's instant coffee

Diageo challenges Bulgarian grey market fine By Emma Barraclough, Managing Intellectual Property Magazine, London, UK, Issue July/August 2006 UK drinks group Diageo last week filed an appeal with the Bulgarian competition watchdog after it was fined a total of Lev600,000 ($390,000) for trying to stop local parallel trading company BeGeIn from selling cut-price whisky and liqueurs imported into the country without the permission of the British drinks maker.

A little victory for the parallel import of alcoholic drinks By Teodora VASILEVA, Boryana BACHVAROVA, Zhana IVANOVA, Capital Newspaper, Issue 29, 22-28 July 2006 The Commission for Protection of Competition passed judgement in favour of a parallel importer. The antimonopoly administration sanctioned three companies of the group of the alcoholic drinks producer DIAGEO for a total of 600 thousand BGN for violation of competition. The fined companies – the Dutch Diageo Brands BV, the British Justerini and Brooks Limited and the Irish R&A Bailey and Co.

Straight one for the parallel importation of Nokia By Zhana Chankova, Capital newspaper, issue 22, 3-9 June, 2006 It is hard time for Nokia importers in Bulgaria. For approximately half a year, law firm “Arsis Consulting” has been clearing the market out in favour of the official importers of Nokia mobile devices and accessories with the assistance of the border control units.

Articles

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1383/2003 Concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights

May 2006 High Court rules on implied consent in parallel importation case

May 2006 ECJ rules on trade mark owners' ability to prevent the sale of external transit goods

Intellectual property rights and parallel imports of genuine products in the European Economic Area (EEA)

2006-04-25 Economic and Legislative Aspects of Parallel Import. Parallel Import Problems Due to the ignorance of the nature of parallel import in international trade, and more often due to uncleanly interests of the parties concerned, for many years parallel import has been anathematized and referred to as “grey market”, a situation, which still exists.

2006-04-18 Parallel Import is Allowed The Supreme court of Cassation has passed a favourable judgement for “parallel import”, namely by Decision 249/22.03.2006 the SCC ruled that there is no infringement of the trademark right when the goods imported in the country are original.

Today Bulgaria and Romania Rank among the Poorest Countries in Europe but Their Economies - and Their Pharmaceutical Markets - Are Growing Fast Source: Genetic Engineering News

Parallel Trade & EU Trade Mark Law.Arguments against reforming the Trade Mark Directive.Consumers' Association response.

Why Parallel Trade May Raise Producers Profits? This paper shows that a manufacturer may benefit from parallel trade. In addition to an intuitive condition about the effect of demand shocks, this occurs when competitive retailers must order inventories before they know the realization of demand and for products whose sale value drops at the end of the demand period. For these types of products, letting retailers trade unsold inventories generally results in larger orders placed with the manufacturer, higher manufacturer profit and higher consumer surplus. The model provides a simple explanation as to why the volume of parallel trade is now very large and accepted by manufacturers for some products such as automobiles, clothes, toys, consumer electronics, musical recordings, cosmetics and perfumes.