Court Dismisses Trademark Infringement Lawsuit Between Brothers After Legal Battle in Abaya Business
TDT | Manama
Email: mail@newsofbahrain.com
A decades-long sibling partnership in the women’s abaya business has ended in a courtroom battle. Two brothers, who have operated separate abaya shops for nearly 40 years, are locked in a legal dispute over alleged trademark infringement.
According to lawyer Abdulatheem Hubail, the plaintiff alleges that his older brother (the first defendant) is using a logo nearly identical to his registered trademark, causing customer confusion.
According to lawyer Abdulatheem Hubail, the plaintiff alleges that his older brother (the first defendant) is using a logo nearly identical to his registered trademark, causing customer confusion.
The plaintiff is seeking a court order to compel his brother to cease using the logo and change it. He has also included the Ministry of Industry and Commerce (the second defendant) in the lawsuit, requesting the ministry to strike the first defendant’s business registration due to the similarity to the plaintiff's registered name and logo. Furthermore, the plaintiff demands the destruction of all abayas bearing the allegedly copied trademark and a temporary compensation of 1200 dinars for damages incurred.
The plaintiff claims that his brother’s logo and business name are so similar to his own that customers are confused, leading to lost sales. He filed a complaint with the Ministry of Industry and Commerce before pursuing legal action.
The defense, presented by lawyer Hubail representing the first defendant, argued that the lawsuit was inadmissible due to lack of standing and merit. The defense contended that the first defendant owned the trademark through use, that there was no imitation, and that the elements of fault and damage were absent.
The plaintiff claims that his brother’s logo and business name are so similar to his own that customers are confused, leading to lost sales. He filed a complaint with the Ministry of Industry and Commerce before pursuing legal action.
The defense, presented by lawyer Hubail representing the first defendant, argued that the lawsuit was inadmissible due to lack of standing and merit. The defense contended that the first defendant owned the trademark through use, that there was no imitation, and that the elements of fault and damage were absent.
The defense also highlighted that both brothers had worked in the same field for 40 years and that the first defendant had already modified his logo, signage, and invoices before the lawsuit was filed. An expert report confirmed that the first defendant had responded to the plaintiff's concerns and altered his branding.
The plaintiff’s counter-argument asserted that the first defendant had merely digitally altered the logo using Photoshop instead of commissioning a new one and continued to use the similar business name, failing to comply with Article 15 of the Trade Names Law by publishing a notice of name change in local newspapers.
The court initially ordered an investigation to verify the plaintiff's claims of logo similarity and damages. However, the plaintiff failed to provide witness testimony to prove the alleged damages, specifically that customers were mistakenly patronising the first defendant's shop believing it to be a branch of the plaintiff's business. The expert report concluded that the first defendant was not using the plaintiff's trademark or business name.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the case, citing the plaintiff’s failure to prove damages. The plaintiff was ordered to pay court costs, legal fees, and the expert’s fees. The court rejected the plaintiff's final request to administer a decisive oath to his brother to prove the absence of infringing goods in his inventory.
The plaintiff’s counter-argument asserted that the first defendant had merely digitally altered the logo using Photoshop instead of commissioning a new one and continued to use the similar business name, failing to comply with Article 15 of the Trade Names Law by publishing a notice of name change in local newspapers.
The court initially ordered an investigation to verify the plaintiff's claims of logo similarity and damages. However, the plaintiff failed to provide witness testimony to prove the alleged damages, specifically that customers were mistakenly patronising the first defendant's shop believing it to be a branch of the plaintiff's business. The expert report concluded that the first defendant was not using the plaintiff's trademark or business name.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the case, citing the plaintiff’s failure to prove damages. The plaintiff was ordered to pay court costs, legal fees, and the expert’s fees. The court rejected the plaintiff's final request to administer a decisive oath to his brother to prove the absence of infringing goods in his inventory.
Related Posts