Pavlov & Co

The matter was started back in 2012 by Stadex Bulgaria – a local distributor of Studex Corporation, USA, who filed a claim with the Commission for Protection of the Competition, accusing a small local private merchant – Karad-DPI-Dimitar Ivanov of imitation of one of their products – a cartridge containing a nose stud, which is used for puncturing the nose and inserting the stud cleanly and easily. Stadex Bulgaria claimed that the cartridge of the local producer was a copy of their own product and that it was confusing to the consumers, so there was infringement of the Law on Protection of the Competition.

The CPC reviewed the matter and concluded that no infringement has taken place, as there were significant differences in the packaging of the two products, and the consumers of the products were actually professionals (in cosmetic and piercing studios), rather than the average consumer, and they could not be confused by the two products. Stadex Bulgaria appealed the decision before the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). The private merchant turned to Pavlov & Co for his defense before the court.

The SAC appointed an expertise where the expert concluded that the cartidges are designed to be used by professionals, they are always distributed in a sterile packaging and due to that the professionals cannot be confused.  Also, there were some differences in the products, which could be memorized by professionals. The claimant was not satisfied and requested a new expert opinion, which was allowed by the court, and in which the expert stated that the two products were highly similar when out of the packaging, and could confuse the consumers. It was here where the most important role of Vasil Pavlov came, having to make sure that this expert also confirms the obvious – that the cartidges are distributed in a packaging, which is necessary and obligatory (in order for them to be sterile), and these packagings differ significantly. The expert did confirm that the products were always packed and packaging was different, which was the turning point in this case. The 3-judge panel dismissed the appeal of Stadex Bulgaria, confirming that the relevant consumers of the product were, indeed, the professionals, rather than the end customers, as the professionals were the ones operating and using it. This was a highly significant conclusion, a rare precedent in Bulgarian Court practice. The court found that the packaging of the two products is significantly different, and it always has to be taken into account, as they are distributed only packed. Further, there was no proof that the product of Studex Corporation, USA was established on the market in a significant way. Hence, no confusion could arise, so the appeal was dismissed. Studex again appealed before the 5-judge panel of the SAC, repeating its claims so far, but the 5-judge panel completely supported the findings of the 3-judge panel and dismissed the appeal, finally putting an end to the lengthy dispute.

The pivotal role of the Pavlov & Co team in this matter was to fend off the attempts of the other party to constantly move the focus of the case towards the similarity of the cartridges themselves, rather than the obvious differences in the packaging which clearly differentiate between the products. A crucial point was overcoming the second expert opinion, which could have swung the case the other way. The vast experience in dealing with difficult matters on the spot helped managing partner Vasil Pavlov react quickly and ask the right questions, so the matter was returned on track.