Constitutional Court

KI 86/20, Applicant: Company „Cosmonte Foods“ L.L.C. , Constitutional review of Judgment E.Rev.no.50/2019 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo, of 9 January 2020

KI 86/20, Resolution on inadmissibility of 18 February 2021, published on 26 March 2021

Keywords: legal person, right to use a trademark, resolution on inadmissibility

The essence of the dispute concerns the issue as to which of the two companies “Cosmonte Foods” L.L.C., or “Birra Prishtina” L.L.C., has the right to use the protected trademark “Birra Prishtina”. In relation to this dispute, there have been conducted two court proceedings before the regular courts, initiated by the Company “Cosmonte Foods” L.L.C., which in this Court appears as the Applicant.

The Applicant through a  statement of claim requested to be confirmed that the respondent Company  “Birra Prishtina” L.L.C., by using the trademark  “Birra Prishtina” has violated his trademark registered under number 15602, of 24 July 2015, by producing and distributing its products in the market under the name of this trademark”.

During the court proceedings, the regular courts came to the conclusion that the respondent had not violated the right to use a trademark, and that we are dealing with two different trademarks bearing the same name.

The Applicant addressed the Court alleging that the challenged judgments and decisions violate the constitutional rights guaranteed by Article 3 and Article 24, point 4 of the Constitution, Article 31 of the Constitution, in conjunction with Article 6 of the ECHR, as well as Article 10 of the UDHR.

More specifically, the Applicant alleges that the courts, by judgments and decisions, have violated his right to fair and impartial trial, because “at the time when the respondent has filed a claim on 22.08.2017, it did not have the trademark registered with the competent authorities. In addition, the Applicant alleges that the parties to the proceedings were not treated equally and that the courts did not review the evidence and facts provided by the claimant-complainant”. In this context, the Applicant refers to the Judgment of the Constitutional Court in the case with no: KI18/16.

Having analyzed the appeal claims, the Court came to the conclusion that the regular courts have quite clearly stated the reasons as to why the Applicant’s statement of claim, appeal and revision were rejected as ungrounded. Hence, the Court considers the Applicant’s allegations that the regular courts did not provide “convincing and well-founded legal reasons for rejecting his claim” to be ungrounded.

Therefore, the Court dismisses the Applicant’s Referral as manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis in accordance with Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure.