The issue of unfair competition has become increasingly significant in today’s competitive market landscape, particularly in industries like cosmetics and personal care. The recent case involving Belarusian joint ventures BELITA and AKVASAN highlights the critical intersection of trademark rights and fair business practices. The described case not only underscores the importance of protecting intellectual property rights through trademarks but also raises essential questions about the boundaries of competitive behavior. As Belarusian market continues to grow, the interpretation and enforcement of laws governing unfair competition and trademarks will play a vital role in ensuring fair play among businesses while safeguarding consumer interests.
Background
BELITA is a player in the cosmetics and perfumery industry in Belarus, established in 1989. The company claimed that its trademark and brand name “BELITA” are well-recognised and have significant market presence. It alleged that AKVASAN’s use of the trademark “Belitsa” for its hair care products misled consumers and constituted unfair competition, as it could cause confusion regarding the origin of the products.
|
BELITA’s trademark |
AKVASAN’s trademark |
Decision
In late 2024, the Belarusian antimonopoly authority found AKVASAN not responsible for unfair competition practices. BELITA tried to appeal this decision in the Belarusian Supreme Court but did not succeed.
Deciding on such cases, the antimonopoly authority considers a range of criteria based on competition law, which can be regarded as an unfair competition test. All criteria should be met to establish unfair competition.
1. Competitive relations in the commodity market
Belarusian antimonopoly authority confirmed that BELITA and AKVASAN operate within the same market segment, manufacturing and selling cosmetic products and competing within Belarusian boundaries. The authority established that both companies are direct competitors in the cosmetic goods market, thus fulfilling the requirement of competitive relations.
2. Acquiring advantages in entrepreneurial activities
Belarusian antimonopoly authority found no evidence that AKVASAN intended to gain an unfair advantage through the use of “Belitsa” trademark. The registration process for the trademark was conducted in compliance with legal procedures, indicating that AKVASAN did not act with a malicious intent to mislead consumers or exploit the goodwill associated with BELITA. The decision noted that intent is a critical factor in determining unfair competition, and in this case, AKVASAN demonstrated no such intent.
When deciding on this issue, the antimonopoly authority considered that BELITA’s and AKVASAN’s trademarks are distinguishable. Moreover, a potential customer can visually separate them. This ground was also confirmed by specially engaged expert. For instance, the following differences were spotted:
- while “BIELITA” features a distinctive typographical style with all capital letters, “Belitsa” is presented in italic with a stylised font that emphasises certain letters (visual comparison);
- although the trademarks sound alike, with only a minor phonetic variation, it was concluded that the pronunciation of “Belitsa” (with an emphasis on the vowel “e”) was sufficiently distinct from “BIELITA” (phonetic comparison);
- “BIELITA” does not carry a specific meaning in Belarusian or Russian, while “Belitsa” has a semantic connotation referring to a “pure woman” in a specific cultural context (semantic comparison).
3. Contradicting with the Belarusian law or the requirements of good faith and reasonableness
Belarusian antimonopoly authority determined that AKVASAN did not violate antimonopoly laws. The registration and use of the “Belitsa” trademark complied with legal requirements set forth by Belarusian Trademark Law, no similarity to the extent of confusion was established between “BIELITA” and “Belitsa” trademarks. The absence of documented violations during the trademark registration process indicated that AKVASAN operated within the legal framework and did not infringe upon the rights of BELITA.
4. Causing loss / damage to business reputation of the competitors
Belarusian antimonopoly authority concluded that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that AKVASAN’s actions harmed BELITA or its reputation. The authority found no indications that consumers were misled about the origin of the products marketed under the “Belitsa” label.
This article first appeared in WTR Daily, part of World Trademark Review, in April 2025. For further information, please go to www.worldtrademarkreview.com.