The Federal Supreme Court referred a commercial dispute between two companies over trademark rights to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration, overturning a ruling that rejected a company's suit against another, asserting the legal protection of the trademark registered with the Ministry of Economy and preventing its use by competitors.

In the details, a company filed a commercial suit, demanding that its competitor destroy all the packages bearing its trademark, prevent it from using this mark, or any similar mark, or the method of manufacturing its products, and destroy all the publications using the mark, , For damages.

The plaintiff said in its lawsuit that it manufactures the paints and paints and supplies, and complained to some of its customers in another country of the bad quality of the product. A report to the Public Prosecution.

At the time of the inspection, the trademarked containers belonging to the plaintiff were seized, the defendant was acquitted and the plaintiff relinquished the communication, after the defendant company undertook not to export or produce the same mark without her consent, but continued to manufacture it.

The Court of First Instance ruled that the defendant was prevented from using the trademark, and obliged to destroy the containers carrying the mark, with a performance of 30 thousand and 800 dirhams, in return for financial and moral compensation, and rejected the other requests. This judgment is acceptable to the plaintiff and she has challenged him.

Stating that the trademark owner has the right to use them to discriminate against the products or services prescribed for them and to use them in a similar service that constitutes an attack against the right of the owner of the mark and harms it, For compensation for the damage caused.

She explained that the plaintiff was the first victim of the act of the defendant, whose trademark was copied on the manufactured packagings, which extended the rights conferred on her by the certificate of registration for her trademark owned by the Ministry of Economy, as a consequence of that registration.

The Court concluded that the appeal judgment did not comply with this consideration, did not notice the defendant's use of a trademark owned by another, and the legal protection enjoyed by the latter as an effect to register its mark with the Ministry of Economy, which must be revoked with reference.

The judgment of appeal was not understood to use the defendant's trademark owned by others