Green Dot Malta Ltd, licensed to operate a waste recovery scheme, won a court case against a subsidiary company belonging to the Chamber of Small and Medium Enterprises - GRTU, which had launched a waste recovery scheme under a name that Mr Justice Raymond C. Pace, sitting in the First Hall of the Civil Court, found to be causing confusion for people requiring waste recycling services.
Green Dot Malta Ltd was incorporated in 2004 as GreenPak Ltd and was licensed by Der Grune Punkt Duales System Deutschland GmbH to use the world-known Green Dot trademark. The GRTU, through its subsidiary company, launched its waste recovery scheme under the name Green.Mt Ltd. in 2007.
Green Dot Malta Ltd resorted to judicial action, asking the court to declare that the name Green.Mt Ltd amounted to unfair competition in terms of law. It argued that the "." (dot) coupled with the words "Green Mt" were used by to cause confusion in the market. Green Dot Malta Ltd also asked the court to declare that certain press releases and circulars issued by the GRTU subsidiary company were tantamount to misleading advertising and unfair competition aimed at spreading false news to the prejudice of Green Dot Malta Ltd.
Mr Justice Pace ruled that the two schemes were obviously direct competitors operating in the same field of activity and the name Green.Mt Ltd was creating confusion in terms of article 32 of chapter 13 of the laws of Malta.
The court said that the law laid down that businessmen could not use any name, mark or symbol that could cause confusion with another name, mark or symbol used legally by others. The whole case verged on whether the name Green.Mt Ltd could be confused with the name Green Dot Malta Ltd. The imitation did not need to be perfect. It was enough that in its entirety it could deceive a consumer, the court noted.
Mr Justice Pace said that after examining the words used in the names he had no doubt that they could and were causing confusion among people needing some service related to recycling and a person could end up thinking he was dealing with a company when he was in fact dealing with another. The confusion would be due to the fact that the names were so similar. The names, put near each other or pronounced, sounded the same.
In its judgment, the court concluded that the GRTU's decision to use the name "Green.Mt Ltd" as the name of its subsidiary company constituted unfair competition. The press releases and circulars issued by the GRTU subsidiary company also constituted unfair competition and misleading advertising, aimed at spreading false news to the prejudice of Green Dot Malta Ltd.
The court also ordered the GRTU subsidiary company to pay Green Dot Malta Ltd €500 by way of penalty and to destroy within 30 days any offending material it had bearing the name Green.Mt Ltd.