Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HO 26.11.1986 1041 AI generated

Trade name registration not harmful when clearly distinct from earlier registered trade name.

Case Number Helsingin HO 26.11.1986 1041
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the claim that the registration of the trade name 'Ab Alumina-Varvet Oy' harmed the earlier registered 'Oy Aluma Ab'. The plaintiff argued the names were identical, but the court found they were clearly distinct entities. Consequently, the registration was permitted as it did not cause confusion or prejudice to the original trade name holder.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Trade Names Act 1978, s. 11; Trade Names Act 1979, s. 7: The registration of a new trade name is not considered harmful if it is clearly distinct from a previously registered trade name, even if the names appear similar.

Keywords

AI generated
trade name registration distinctiveness requirement harmful registration trade name conflict Oy Aluma Ab Ab Alumina-Varvet Oy trade name cancellation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Trade Names Act 1978, s. 11
Trade Names Act 1979, s. 7
Trade Names Act 1979, s. 19
Trade Names Act 1979, s. 33
AI generated
market_1996_4
Market court dismisses unfair competition claim as it lacks jurisdiction over trade name and trademark issues.
kko-other_2010_2386
Supreme Court dismisses appeal regarding failure to submit criminal case for insolvency proceedings due to procedural error.
admin_2000_helsinki__910
Shareholder liability for VAT imposed on unregistered company actions by non-owner director.
kho-precedent_2002_44
Supreme Administrative Court dismisses appeal regarding statute of limitations for stamp duty on land acquisition before land reform law.
kko-other_2024_1643
Supreme Court dismisses appeal regarding refusal of further stay of execution due to serious fraud in asylum case.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

HO, toisin kuin RO, katsoi, että toiminimi Ab Alumina-Varvet Oy, joka oli rekisteröity vuonna 1978, erosi ToiminimiA:n (22/95) 11 §:n 2 momentissa säädetyin tavoin selvästi aikaisemmin rekisteröidystä toiminimestä Oy Aluma Ab eikä toiminimen rekisteröiminen siten ollut Oy Aluma Ab:lle haitallinen.

Kun toiminimen Ab Alumina-Varvet Oy rekisteröintiä ei siten olisi ennen ToiminimiL:n (128/79) voimaantuloa 1.3.1979 voitu kumota ToiminimiA:n 7 §:n ja 11 §:n 2 momentin nojalla, ei kumoaminen ToiminimiL:n 33 §:n 1 momentin säännös huomioon ottaen ollut mahdollista myöskään ToiminimiL:n 19 §:n 1 momentin nojalla.

Läsnä: Valkonen, Hirvonen ja Niemelä (apuj.) Esittelijä: Karttunen

Lainvoimainen