Now in its twelfth year, Class 46 is dedicated to European trade mark law and practice. This weblog is written by a team of enthusiasts who want to spread the word and share their thoughts with others.
Who we all are...
MONDAY, 8 SEPTEMBER 2014
SOX in court: Danes give final ruling on long-standing dispute
The Sarbanes-Oxley Institute provides education on the so-called 'SOX' legislation ("SOX" being an acronym for "Sarbanes-Oxley"). This legislation was enacted in the United States in 2002, in response to the Enron scandal, in order to secure better corporate governance and accounting policy. Corresponding legislation was passed in the European Union in 2006 (Eurosox).
Posted by: Blog Administrator @ 13.29
Denmark, infringement, interim relief,
Kersi Porbunderwalla and his firm Controllers ApS provided consulting services on the implementation of SOX and Eurosox, among other things. In 2006 Porbunderwalla and his company sought to establish a relationship of cooperation with the SOX Institute in Europe, including Denmark. That cooperation ceased at the end of 2006.
In subsequent infringement proceedings brought in Denmark, the Supreme Court established that the use and registration of the trade marks SOX INSTITUTE and EUROSOX INSTITUTE after termination of the cooperation did not infringe the Sarbanes-Oxley Institute's trade marks on the basis that, at the time of the trade mark registration in Denmark, there was no trade mark registration for the defendant to infringe; nor had there been any infringement of copyright. However, any public implication on the appellant's website that the cooperation between the parties still existed, even once it had ceased, constituted unfair competition under the Act on Marketing.
Turning to the question of remedies, an interim injunction was granted as long ago as 2008 to restrain the allegedly infringing but actually permitted use. This interim order was of itself wrongly granted because the SOX Institute had not sought the injunction in a timely fashion after protesting against the violation in 2007. The Supreme Court then estimated that the Institute had to pay Dkr 100,000 as compensation for the imposition of this injunction, as well as Dkr 200,000 as costs (including costs before the Bailiff's Court, the Maritime and Commercial Court and the Supreme Court).
Source: "Supreme Court rules on trademark use after cooperation", by Mads Marstrand-Jørgensen (MAQS Law Firm, Copenhagen): case note posted on International Law Office, 8 September 2014.
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Reader Comments: 0
Post a Comment
MARQUES does not guarantee the accuracy of the information in this blog. The views are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect those of MARQUES. Seek professional advice before action on any information included here.
The Class 46 Archive