À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Respect de la propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé Outils et services en matière d’intelligence artificielle L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Application des droits de propriété intellectuelle WIPO ALERT Sensibilisation Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Financement Actifs incorporels Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions WIPO Webcast Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Assistant de classification États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Lois Traités Jugements Recherche par ressort juridique

Sénégal

SN007-j

Retour

2024 WIPO IP Judges Forum Informal Case Summary – Tribunal of Commerce of Dakar, Senegal [2023]: Société Unite-Industrielle de Parfumerie et de Cosmetiques - UNIPARCO SA v Moustapha Fall, Decision No. 919

This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2024 WIPO IP Judges Forum.

 

Session 6

Tribunal of Commerce of Dakar, Senegal [2023]: Société Unite-Industrielle de Parfumerie et de Cosmetiques - UNIPARCO SA v Moustapha Fall, Decision No. 919

Date of judgment: May 3, 2023
Issuing authority: Tribunal of Commerce of Dakar
Level of the issuing authority: First Instance
Type of procedure: Judicial (Civil)

Subject matter: Trademarks ; Enforcement of IP and Related Laws
Plaintiff: Société Unite-Industrielle de Parfumerie et de Cosmetiques - UNIPARCO SA
Defendant: Moustapha Fall

Keywords: Trademarks, Cancellation of trademark, Cessation of trademark Use, Injunctive relief, Permanent injunction, Withdrawal of goods from the market

 

Basic facts: The company SOCIETE UNITE-INDUSTRIELLE DE PARFUMERIE ET DE COSMETIQUES - UNIPARCO SA (the plaintiff) is the owner of the trademark “VIT-FEE + logo” appearing in red lettering on a white background. The trademark was registered with the African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI) on April 25, 2006 (under registration number 54392) to cover products in classes 3 and 5 of the Nice Classification and was renewed in 2017.  

The defendant, Moustapha FALL, registered with OAPI the following trademarks:

  • “VITFE” appearing in red lettering on a yellow background with registration number 104826, since October 11, 2018, to cover products in Classes 3 and 5 of the Nice Classification,
  • “VITFEE + design” with registration number 111133, filed on September 4, 2019, to cover products in Class 5 of the Nice Classification.

Following these registrations, Moustapha FALL marketed products in classes 3 and 5 under the trademarks VITFE or VITFEE + design in the Senegalese market. Upon discovering this commercialization, the company UNIPARCO SA served Moustapha FALL with a formal notice dated May 4, 7, and 10, 2021, demanding to cease the commercialization of products in Classes 3 and 5 under the VITFE trademark.

Despite a formal notice, the defendant continued the commercialization, leading UNIPARCO SA to file a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the defendant’s trademarks, monetary compensation for damages, immediate withdrawal of the products and the cessation of the commercialization of the infringing products.

In defense, Moustapha FALL moved to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, contending that his trademarks did not conflict with the plaintiff's, there was no likelihood of confusion, damages were not substantiated, and fraud has not been established to warrant cessation of sales.

Held: The Tribunal of Commerce of Dakar’s decision to annul the defendant's trademarks was based on several factors that pointed to the similarity between the trademarks of the defendant, Moustapha FALL, and the plaintiff, UNIPARCO SA.

·       Visual similarity: The court first considered the visual similarities, noting that both trademarks comprised nearly identical letters in the same order, with only one letter “E” difference in one of the defendant’s trademarks. only minor differences. This visual similarity was compounded by the fact that both marks used red lettering, albeit on different background colors (yellow for the defendant and white for the plaintiff).

·         Phonetic similarity: The court found that the phonetic pronunciation of the trademarks was virtually indistinguishable, as the slight variation in the final letter "E" did not significantly alter how the marks were pronounced.

·         Conceptual similarity: Furthermore, the court identified that from the conceptual point of view of the trademarks suggested the same notion of rapid and effective action.

The court further observed that the products covered by both trademarks fell within the same product classes (Classes 3 and 5), increasing the likelihood of confusion among consumers.

This comprehensive analysis led the court to conclude that there was a significant risk of confusion for the average consumer who may not be able to differentiate between the two marks when not viewed side by side.

Consequently, the court held that the defendant's trademarks infringed upon the plaintiff's prior rights, particularly given that the defendant’s trademarks were registered after the plaintiff’s "VIT-FEE + logo" had already been registered.

Tribunal of Commerce of Dakar, therefore, ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the cancellation of the defendant's trademarks "VITFE" and "VITFE + design." The court awarded the plaintiff 20,000,000 CFA francs in damages and ordered the defendant to withdraw the products from the market, with a penalty of 300,000 CFA francs per day of delay. However, the court did not address the plaintiff's request to stop Moustapha FALL from continuing to commercialize these products.

Relevant holdings in relation to permanent injunctions: Tribunal of Commerce of Dakar addressed the cancellation of the defendant’s trademarks, which were deemed similar to those of the plaintiff, UNIPARCO SA. In its decision, the court not only annulled the defendant's trademarks but also issued an injunction requiring the withdrawal of products bearing these trademarks from the market. The court’s decision was grounded in the assessment that the defendant’s trademarks infringed upon UNIPARCO SA's prior rights. Although the case was not a conventional counterfeiting action, the court referenced provisions from Annex III of the Bangui Agreement, which allows for the removal of products deemed infringing from the market.

The court determined that the annulment of the defendant's trademarks implied that the products marketed under these trademarks could be considered infringing, warranting their removal from commercial circulation. To enforce the injunction, the court imposed a daily penalty for non-compliance. This decision underscores the court's approach to protecting trademark rights by preventing the continued sale of products associated with invalidated trademarks, even in cases not explicitly framed as counterfeiting.

However, the court did not address specific details such as the allocation of costs for the withdrawal process or the potential impact on third-party purchasers who may have acquired the products in good faith. Additionally, the court did not rule on the plaintiff's request to prohibit the defendant from further commercialization of the products under the disputed trademarks. This leaves certain aspects of enforcement unaddressed, raising questions about the practical implementation of the injunction and its broader implications for future intellectual property cases.

Relevant legislation:

·         Annex III of Bangui Agreement Instituting an African Intellectual Property Organization - Act of December 14, 2015, Articles 2, 3, 4, 6, 28, 54, and 55

·         Civil and Commercial Obligations Code, Article 118

·         Civil Procedure Code, Article 81

·         Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), Articles 41 and 44