Unfair competition in the use of similar domain names

Technology and business on the Internet are evolving at a furious pace. In our personal opinion Bulgarian legislation in this direction behind.

More recently, the Commission for Protection of Competition, considered an interesting case, namely for unfair competition in the use of similar domain names.

unfair competition using similar domain names

Unfair competition using similar domain names

These approaches are not uncommon phenomenon and an attempt to be deceived and stolen your customers. The Protection Act regulates competition generally in Bulgaria.

According to the CPC (Commission for Protection of Competition) essential constituent elements of the offense under Art. 35, para. 3 of the CPA (Competition Protection Act) is the way of use of a domain. For constitute of the offense is necessary thus be such as to cause or be likely to mislead or confuse consumers, thus damaging the interests of competitors.

The actual constitute of art. 35, para. 3 of the CPA is complex and the use of identical or similar domain is not sufficient to fully implement. A condition allowing the possibility of imitation is the presence of a been imposed market reputation of the merchant or of offered goods and services that could bring undeserved benefits of acting in bad faith (simulated) trader.

This is what is commented in Decision 562 from 17.05.2012 CPC.
Same decision has expressed an opinion about the misuse of the appearance of the website, identical or similar to another merchant.

The facts show that there are a similarity and differences between these websites subject of the event, but this similarity is seen with other websites offering the same products. The Commission considers that this similarity is due to the conventional approach to building a website of this type.

Such a similarity in terms of the basic elements of the sites cannot be assumed that undoubtedly is due to deliberate behavior simulation of site ownership to another person.

An allegation that there is a similarity in the products offered by companies such as assortment of two sites, the committee believes that such similarity and / or identity of the range should not be a reason to justify the violation of Art. 35, para. 3 of the PCA when both sites only offer products from foreign brands and names as well as descriptions of the technical parameters of products related to their functionality and applications as they do not depend on the preferences of companies.

 

Comments are closed.