The team of lawyers from STOICA & Asociații, consisting of Dragoș Bogdan (Senior Partner) and Mihai Stănescu (Managing Associate), safeguards a Romanian chain of fast-food restaurants, obtaining the dismissal of a preliminary injunction, by which the client was prohibited from using the distinctive signs under which it operated.
The opposing party, operator of an international chain of restaurants that is not present on the Romanian market, requested in court to prohibit the use of the signs used by the client due to an alleged infringement of the former’s EU trademarks. The Bucharest Tribunal, in the first procedural phase, upheld the request and ordered, with immediate effect, the cessation of use of the disputed signs. Thus, due to the court’s decision, the client should have, at least temporarily, ceased its activity, considering that the change of distinctive signs was not possible in such a short period of time.
In the appeal filed by the client through the lawyers from STOICA & Asociații, the Bucharest Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the Tribunal. It is worth noting that, to obtain a preliminary injunction in the matter of intellectual property, the right holder must demonstrate the existence of a damage that is difficult to repair. Romanian jurisprudence, in full agreement with the legislation and practice at the European level, analyses this condition within the proportionality test. By carrying out the test, the Bucharest Court of Appeals issued a decision in favour of the Romanian chain of fast-food restaurants.
Dragoș Bogdan: ,,The particularity of the case, on appeal, consisted in the intense debates on the condition of «damage that is difficult to repair» , which the right holder risks suffering because of the alleged illegal action. The Bucharest Court of Appeal, in a pragmatic approach, obviously following the European perspective, balanced the interests of both parties and considered the option that produces less damage or is easier to repair. Between the interests of the holder of the European trademarks, which is not present on the Romanian market, and the interests of the Romanian client, whose activity would have been stopped by issuing such a preliminary injunction, the balance tilted, in this case, in favour of the latter. This decision is worth mentioning, confirming a previous trend, whereby Romanian judges, specialized in intellectual property, prefer an economic, rational approach, and not a dogmatic one, which does not take into account the real economic interests of the parties. „