关于知识产权 知识产权培训 树立尊重知识产权的风尚 知识产权外联 部门知识产权 知识产权和热点议题 特定领域知识产权 专利和技术信息 商标信息 工业品外观设计信息 地理标志信息 植物品种信息(UPOV) 知识产权法律、条约和判决 知识产权资源 知识产权报告 专利保护 商标保护 工业品外观设计保护 地理标志保护 植物品种保护(UPOV) 知识产权争议解决 知识产权局业务解决方案 知识产权服务缴费 谈判与决策 发展合作 创新支持 公私伙伴关系 人工智能工具和服务 组织简介 与产权组织合作 问责制 专利 商标 工业品外观设计 地理标志 版权 商业秘密 WIPO学院 讲习班和研讨会 知识产权执法 WIPO ALERT 宣传 世界知识产权日 WIPO杂志 案例研究和成功故事 知识产权新闻 产权组织奖 企业 高校 土著人民 司法机构 遗传资源、传统知识和传统文化表现形式 经济学 性别平等 全球卫生 气候变化 竞争政策 可持续发展目标 前沿技术 移动应用 体育 旅游 PATENTSCOPE 专利分析 国际专利分类 ARDI - 研究促进创新 ASPI - 专业化专利信息 全球品牌数据库 马德里监视器 Article 6ter Express数据库 尼斯分类 维也纳分类 全球外观设计数据库 国际外观设计公报 Hague Express数据库 洛迦诺分类 Lisbon Express数据库 全球品牌数据库地理标志信息 PLUTO植物品种数据库 GENIE数据库 产权组织管理的条约 WIPO Lex - 知识产权法律、条约和判决 产权组织标准 知识产权统计 WIPO Pearl(术语) 产权组织出版物 国家知识产权概况 产权组织知识中心 产权组织技术趋势 全球创新指数 世界知识产权报告 PCT - 国际专利体系 ePCT 布达佩斯 - 国际微生物保藏体系 马德里 - 国际商标体系 eMadrid 第六条之三(徽章、旗帜、国徽) 海牙 - 国际外观设计体系 eHague 里斯本 - 国际地理标志体系 eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange 调解 仲裁 专家裁决 域名争议 检索和审查集中式接入(CASE) 数字查询服务(DAS) WIPO Pay 产权组织往来账户 产权组织各大会 常设委员会 会议日历 WIPO Webcast 产权组织正式文件 发展议程 技术援助 知识产权培训机构 COVID-19支持 国家知识产权战略 政策和立法咨询 合作枢纽 技术与创新支持中心(TISC) 技术转移 发明人援助计划(IAP) WIPO GREEN 产权组织的PAT-INFORMED 无障碍图书联合会 产权组织服务创作者 WIPO Translate 语音转文字 分类助手 成员国 观察员 总干事 部门活动 驻外办事处 职位空缺 采购 成果和预算 财务报告 监督
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
法律 条约 判决 按管辖区浏览

WIPO Lex

WIPOLEX021-j

返回

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