If you’ve ever been confused between the names of two different shoe shops – ShoeMarket and ShoeMark – a court has now made sure it won’t happen again, ordering the former to change its name immediately.

The Appeals Court last week confirmed a previous ruling that the owner of ShoeMarket was breaching the trademark that had been registered in 2003 by a competing shoe store, ShoeMark.

The former was offering similar products and this amounted to unfair competition, the panel of three judges found.

Mr Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri, Mr Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo and Mr Justice Noel Cuschieri delivered their judgment in the case filed by Mark Attard, the owner of ShoeMark, who complained that ShoeMarket was creating confusion among consumers.

Mr Attard had opened his shop in March 2003 after registering the name.

Some time later, a Mark Micallef approached him with a business proposal – he wanted to buy shoes from him and re-sell them.

The shop names also created confusion among postmen because he was receiving post addressed to his competitor and vice versa

Mr Attard agreed and supplied Mr Micallef with shoes but asked him several times to change the name of his shop because it was too similar to his own.

The court heard that Mr Micallef then found out who ShoeMark’s suppliers were and even ordered a container of shoes from them, although the suppliers subsequently discontinued shipments to Mr Micallef.

Mr Attard told the court that clients were turning up at his shop holding adverts for his competitor. The shop names also created confusion among postmen because he was receiving post addressed to his competitor and vice versa.

In 2012, Mr Justice Mark Chetcuti had found Mr Micallef guilty of breach of trademark, resulting in unfair competition between shops offering similar products.

The Appeal Court last week noted the similarity of the shop names and the almost identical products they were offering, saying this was causing confusion among consumers.

It said the fact that the shoe shops had been set up in the same period did not justify the use of a similar name, giving the impression that they were one and the same.

ShoeMarket argued that the logos were very different – one was based on blue and the other had orange as its main colour. But the court threw out this argument, saying that the logos did not need to be similar to create confusion. The similarly in the sound of the two names was enough.

Lawyer Antonio Depasquale appeared for ShoeMark.

matthew.xuereb@timesofmalta.com