About Intellectual Property IP Training Respect for IP IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships AI Tools & Services The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars IP Enforcement WIPO ALERT Raising Awareness World IP Day WIPO Magazine Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Webcast WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Classification Assistant Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Laws Treaties Judgments Browse By Jurisdiction

WIPO Lex

WIPOLEX021-j

Back

Court of First Instance, Amman, Jordan [2008]: Aowrgo Food and Befrg International Company v Akhaa Arabia Company

This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2023 WIPO IP Judges Forum.

 

Session 6: Rules of Evidence in Intellectual Property Litigation

 

Court of First Instance, Amman, Jordan [2008]: Aowrgo Food and Befrg International Company v Akhaa Arabia Company

 

Date of judgment: May 20, 2008

Issuing authority: Amman Court of First Instance

Level of the issuing authority: First Instance

Type of procedure: Judicial (Civin( �o:p>

Subject matter: Trademarks
Plaintiff: Aowrgo Food and Befrg International Company
Defendant: Akhaa Arabia Company
Keywords: Trademarks, Unfair competition

 

Basic facts: The first plaintiff is the owner of the well-known trademark BOOM BOOM, registered for energy drinks in their name with the Industrial Property Protection Directorate/Trademarks Registrar at the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Supply.  The BOOM BOOM trademark has been used by the plaintiff globally and in Jordan for years, and it is registered in more than 30 countries.  The second plaintiff is the exclusive agent for importing, selling and distributing the Boom Boom energy drink products.  The products of the first plaintiff are of a special nature in terms of distinctive design for the colors and their gradations, which give a special characteristic relative to other similar products, as the packaging was designed to attract the attention of the consuming public.

The defendant is accused of taking advantage of the fame of Boom Boom energy drinks in Jordan to deceive and mislead the public into the belief that their product is the original Boom Boom product.  By importing, storing, selling and trading goods bearing a trademark identical to the BOOM BOOM mark, the defendant is alleged to have given the public the illusion that the goods sold are original, leading the two plaintiffs to incur considerable damage and material losses.  Accordingly, the plaintiffs claim that the defendant’s acts constitute trademark infringement and unfair competition, as they mislead the public and cause consumer confusion in accordance with the provisions of the Law on Unfair Competition and Trade Secrets, and the Law on Trademarks.  The defendant previously applied to register a BOOM BOOM trademark, but the application was rejected due to the earlier registration of the first plaintiff’s trademark in Jordan and numerous other countries.

 

Held: The Court convicted the defendant for the crime of acquiring goods with the intent of selling and carrying a forged trademark, contrary to the provisions of Article 37/1/c of the Law on Trademarks.  The Court ordered the goods imported by the defendant to be confiscated and destroyed at the expense of the defendant.

 

Relevant holdings: The plaintiff submitted a certificate (Company Certification of Registration) proving its registration in the Jordanian Companies Register, as well as a trademark registration certificate for the BOOM BOOM mark, demonstrating its valid registration in the name of the plaintiff in the Jordanian Trademark Register in Class No. 32 for beer, mineral and carbonated water and other non-alcoholic drinks.  In addition, the plaintiff submitted a sample of the goods marked by its trademark, i.e., an energy drink bearing the trademark (BOOM BOOM) (Boom Boom), numbering three containers, as well as the seized sample, an energy drink bearing the trademark (BOOM BOOM) (Boom Boom), numbering 24 containers.  Finally, the plaintiff’s attorney submitted a copy of the temporary measure decision issued by the Second Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights Court in Istanbul, and the plaintiff requested the authorization of technical expertise to estimate the damage the plaintiff sustained as a result of the defendant’s actions.  However, because the plaintiff did not provide evidence of the damage, the expert did not estimate compensation for the material damage.

The defendant submitted a letter stating that it is a duly registered commercial agent for the Turkish company Star Beverages, exclusively responsible for importing, selling and marketing energy drink products that bear the BOOM BOOM trademark from November 15, 2020, to November 14, 2025.  The defendant also submitted a copy of a trademark registration certificate to demonstrate that the BOOM BOOM trademark is owned by Star Beverage Company and registered in Türkiye.  However, the Court did not take this evidence into account, finding that since the plaintiff owns the trademark (BOOM BOOM) in Jordan, it is protected within this territory, and any infringement is considered legally criminal based on the provisions of the Law on Trademarks.

Because the scope of criminal protection for a trademark is territorial, and as the Türkish company did not register its trademark in Jordan, the defendant’s possession of the goods bearing this trademark is in violation of the provisions of the Jordanian trademark law.

 

Relevant legislation:

Civil Code No. 43 of 1976

Law No. 33 of 1952 on Trademarks

Law No. 15 of 2000 on Unfair Competition and Trade Secrets