Background of the case

On June 30, 2016, the appellant ACRISTALIA S.L. filed a lawsuit against Mr. Gabino and CRISTALIA VIDRIO 2000 S.L., requesting the court to sentence the defendants to cease on the use of the sign and name ACRISTALIA in social networks, as well as in any other media that may lead to confusion among consumers and consequently to withdraw the material in which the violation of the right has materialized and to acknowledge the unfair acts of the defendant.

The Court of First Instance partially upheld the claim, declaring that there was unfair behavior by acts of confusion according to Articles 6 and 25 of the Unfair Competition Act.

Decision on the Appeal

Both parties have appealed the judgment, responding only the Court to the claims of CRISTALIA VIDRIO, because the appeal filed by the applicant was not sufficiently grounded and because the reasons that were unfavorable to it were not contested.

This Court considers that the reasons for which the acts of unfair competition established in Articles 6 and 25 are condemned are duly grounded in the reasoning of the judgment, since the defendant identified itself on Internet as the plaintiff’s distributor, also using the term “ACRISTALIA MADRID” for the offer, advertising of identical products on the basis of the evidence provided (website), which has been determining and relevant for the Court.

CRISTALIA VIDRIO does not recognize the probative value of the documents provided, but it does not provide any evidence to support it, and it only claims that the web pages to which the plaintiff refers do not offer any security and therefore their content is not reliable. However, after the analysis of the details that appear on the website and the documents provided, it is noted that the sole administrator of the plaintiff company CRISTALIA VIDIRO, appears as the owner of the domain name of one of the websites where the infringement is claimed to exist, and that the contact details coincide with those of CRISTALIA VIDRIO, among others. Therefore, all this offers a solid enough basis to establish that it was CRISTALIA VIDRIO who was behind those advertisements related to ACRISTALIA and that it is the defendant who incurs in the unfair behaviour in relation to misleading acts and practices.

Consequently, the appeal filed by CRISTALIA VIDRIO against the judgement issued on October 16, 2018 by the Commercial Court number 6 of Madrid, in the ordinary trial number 488/2016, is dismissed.

Judgement nº 258/2020 of the Provincial Court of Madrid (Audiencia Provincial) of June 19, 2020.