Publications

Trademarks are fundamental components of the legal and economic framework of modern business. They not only distinguish a company’s goods and services from those of competitors but also build consumer trust, ensure market identity, and represent significant intangible assets.

Proper registration, effective management, and timely protection of trademarks are crucial for the long-term success of any organization, regardless of its size or sector.

Definition and Functions of a Trademark

A trademark is a sign that serves to distinguish the goods or services of one enterprise from those of others. According to Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the European Union trade mark and Article 9 of the Bulgarian Law on Marks and Geographical Indications (LMGI), the sign must be capable of being represented in a manner that allows for clear and precise determination of the subject of legal protection.

Various types of trademarks exist, depending on their form and the way consumers perceive them. These include word marks comprising words, letters, or numbers; figurative marks containing graphic images or stylized fonts; three-dimensional marks related to the shape of products or their packaging; non-traditional marks such as color combinations, sound signals, multimedia, or positional signs.

The primary functions of a trademark include identification (enabling consumers to recognize the origin of goods or services), guarantee (creating an expectation of quality and consistency), marketing (facilitating brand image and loyalty), economic (serving as a valuable asset that can be licensed, transferred, or used as collateral).

Distinction Between Trademark and Trade Name

In practice, there is often confusion between the terms “trademark” and “trade name,” although they have different legal natures and operate in distinct areas of the legal system.

A trade name is the designation under which a legal entity or sole proprietor conducts business and is registered in the Commercial Register, in accordance with the requirements of the Commercial Act. The trade name serves to individualize the trader as a legal subject and does not, by itself, confer rights over goods or services.

A trademark, on the other hand, is an object of industrial property and serves to distinguish the goods or services offered by a person in the market. Registration of a trademark grants exclusive rights to use the sign concerning specific classes of goods or services and protection against third parties who might use an identical or similar sign.

Understanding “Registered Trademark”

In Bulgarian practice, the expression “zapezena marka” (literally: “protected mark”) is commonly used as a synonym for a registered trademark. While this phrase is widely accepted in everyday language, it has no formal standing in Bulgarian or EU legislation. Legally, the concept that carries enforceable rights is the registered trademark, governed by the Bulgarian Law on Marks and Geographical Indications and Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the European Union trade mark.

A registered trademark grants its holder the exclusive right to use the sign concerning specific goods or services and to prohibit unauthorized use by third parties. For a sign to be effectively protected as a “registered trademark,” its registration must be completed and entered into the relevant register, with legal protection commencing from the date of registration.

Trademark Registration in Bulgaria and the European Union

To ensure legal protection, a trademark must be registered with the competent authority. Depending on the scope of business activity, registration can be carried out at the national level – before the Patent Office of the Republic of Bulgaria – or at the European level – through the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

A registered trademark grants its holder exclusive rights to use the sign concerning specific goods or services. This includes the ability to oppose unauthorized use by third parties and to build a long-term market identity. National registration provides protection only within Bulgaria, while a European Union trademark is valid in all EU member states.

The registration procedure involves submitting an application, examination by the relevant authority, and publication, with possible opposition from holders of earlier rights. Given the potential for procedural and substantive obstacles, trademark registration requires careful legal analysis and a strategic approach from the planning stage. In the absence of opposition and additional complications, trademark registration in Bulgaria typically takes between 12 and 18 months, while EU trademark registration takes between 4 and 6 months.

Professional legal support in this process is essential, especially when developing a cross-border brand strategy or assessing risks related to registration refusal. An approach tailored to the business’s specifics ensures higher legal certainty and effective protection.

Grounds for Refusal of Registration

Not every trademark application is eligible for registration. Legislation provides specific grounds for refusal aimed at ensuring legality, market clarity, and protection of prior rights.

Two main types of refusals are distinguished: absolute and relative. Absolute grounds are applied ex officio by the registering authority and include, for example, lack of distinctiveness, descriptiveness concerning the goods or services, conflict with public order, or use of designations protected by other rights (e.g., geographical indications or state symbols).

Relative grounds for refusal arise when there is an earlier trademark identical or similar to the new application and are applied at the initiative of third parties – holders of such rights. Such conflicts often lead to opposition during the registration procedure or disputes after its completion.

Therefore, a preliminary legal check for conflicts with already registered trademarks is critically important. Analyzing potential obstacles to registration allows for avoiding refusals, prolongation of the procedure, and unnecessary costs for the business.

Rights Conferred by Registration

Registration of a trademark grants its holder the exclusive right to use the sign to designate specific goods or services within the chosen territorial scope – national or European. This right includes the ability to prohibit third parties from using identical or similar signs in commercial activities when there is a likelihood of confusion among consumers.

The protection provided through registration has both preventive and repressive functions – on one hand, deterring unauthorized use, and on the other, providing legal grounds for taking action against infringers. This includes claims for cessation of infringement, compensation for damages, destruction of infringing products, and other protective measures provided in national and European legislation.

It is important to note that trademark rights are not unlimited – for example, in cases of exhaustion of rights within the EU, the holder cannot oppose further commercialization of the goods.

A registered trademark is also a transferable asset that can be subject to licensing, pledge, or capital contribution. This makes it not only a protection tool but also a strategic element of the enterprise’s commercial value.

Infringement of Trademark Rights and Legal Remedies

Trademark infringement occurs when a third party uses, without the holder’s consent, an identical or similar sign for goods or services that are identical or similar to those for which the trademark is registered, creating a likelihood of confusion among consumers. Infringement can manifest through product labeling, advertising materials, commercial packaging, online content, or even domain name registration.

The trademark holder has the right to seek legal protection. Primary legal remedies include claims for cessation of infringement, compensation for incurred damages, and measures for the destruction of goods or materials related to the infringement. In certain cases, administrative and border control mechanisms can also be employed, especially concerning import violations or online commerce.

Managing Trademarks as Business Assets

A trademark is not merely a legal protection tool but also an economic asset that can be managed, traded, and strategically utilized. Similar to other forms of intellectual property, it holds value that can be included in the company’s balance sheet, pledged as collateral, or used in commercial negotiations.

The right to a registered trademark can be transferred through an assignment agreement, which must be recorded in the relevant register to have legal effect against third parties. Additionally, the trademark can be licensed – the holder grants another party the right to use it for compensation, under conditions that may be limited by time, territory, or scope of activity.

Challenges for Trademarks in the Digital Era

The rise of digital technologies, social media, and e-commerce has introduced new dimensions to the challenges faced by trademark holders. The online environment facilitates unauthorized use of trademarks in domain names, advertising campaigns, meta tags, e-commerce platforms, and social media channels.

Moreover, the emergence of new forms of digital content – such as NFTs, virtual goods, and metaverse environments – raises complex questions about the scope of protection and applicability of existing registered trademarks in a fully digital context.

The regulatory response to these developments is still evolving. With the entry into force of the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the enhanced responsibilities imposed on online platforms, new mechanisms are being introduced to report and remove infringements of trademark rights on the internet.For trademark holders, this underscores the need to update their protection strategies – including regular monitoring of online use, proactive enforcement against counterfeiting, and the adaptation of legal frameworks to align with emerging technological trends.

In the previous article, we explored the challenges of taxation in the digital economy and the need to adapt tax frameworks to cross-border digital services. This article focuses on specific reforms in the field of value-added tax (VAT), introduced through the VAT in the Digital Age Package (ViDA).

Presented by the European Commission, the package aims to modernize the VAT system through digitalization, harmonization of electronic invoicing rules, and enhanced administrative cooperation between tax authorities within the EU. 

On November 5, 2024, the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) reached a political agreement on the key elements of the ViDA package,  and on March 11, 2025, the Council of the EU officially adopted the package, paving the way for its implementation.

---

I. EU-level Legal Framework

The VAT in the Digital Age Package is part of the EU’s efforts to modernize and harmonize the VAT system in response to the challenges of the digital economy and cross-border trade.

The current VAT framework, based on Council Directive 2006/112/EC (VAT Directive), governs the taxation of goods and services. Despite multiple amendments, the directive remains built on a system that does not fully account for digital business models, automated processes, and the growing role of platform economies. In this context, the European Commission has identified three key issues:

– Fragmented electronic invoicing and digital reporting systems – National differences increase business costs and administrative burdens.

– Complex VAT registration and reporting procedures – Despite the One-Stop Shop (OSS) mechanism, many companies still face complicated registration requirements across multiple Member States.

– VAT fraud and lack of transparency – The VAT gap remains a serious issue, with €60 billion in VAT losses across the EU in 2021.

---

II. Existing Initiatives and the ViDA Connection

Before the introduction of ViDA, the EU implemented several measures to improve the VAT system, forming the foundation for the new reform:

– VAT Action Plan (2016) – Aimed at creating a simpler, more efficient, and sustainable VAT system that better reflects the digital economy.

– Directive (EU) 2017/2455 and Directive (EU) 2019/1995 – Introduced the One-Stop Shop (OSS) mechanism, simplifying VAT reporting for companies operating across multiple EU Member States.

– Directive (EU) 2020/284 – Imposed specific obligations on digital platforms, requiring them to report trader activities.

Despite these reforms, the European Commission acknowledged that the need for further harmonization remains pressing, which led to the proposal of the ViDA legislative package.

In this context, on December 8, 2022, the European Commission introduced three key legislative proposals under ViDA:

1. COM(2022) 701 final – Proposal to amend the VAT Directive (2006/112/EC), including:

– Expansion of the One-Stop Shop (OSS) to cover more businesses.

– New VAT rules for digital platforms, making them responsible for collecting and reporting VAT.

2. COM(2022) 703 final – Proposal to amend Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010, on administrative cooperation in the field of VAT. The main objective is:

– Strengthen data exchange between tax administrations to prevent VAT fraud.

– Create an EU-wide digital platform for monitoring intra-EU transactions.

– Introduce joint tax audits to detect cross-border VAT evasion schemes.

3. COM(2022) 704 final – Proposal to amend Council Regulation (EU) No 282/2011, establishing:

– Standardized technical requirements for electronic invoices.

– Harmonization of national e-invoicing systems to align with EU rules.

– Automated exchange of invoice data for improved VAT oversight.

Following the political agreement reached on November 5, 2024, the Council of the EU officially adopted ViDA on March 11, 2025, requiring Member States to begin the process of transposing and implementing the new rules.

---

III. Key Components of the VAT in the Digital Age Package

1. Mandatory Electronic Invoicing

COM(2022) 704 final introduces common rules for e-invoicing across all Member States, facilitating tax authority oversight and reducing administrative burdens for businesses. Standardized technical requirements will enable faster data processing but will require significant digital infrastructure upgrades.

In parallel, a Digital Reporting Requirements (DRR) mechanism is introduced, mandating the automatic submission of cross-border transaction data to tax authorities. This aims to reduce fraud and enhance real-time VAT monitoring.

2. New VAT Reporting and Data Exchange Mechanisms

COM(2022) 703 final amends Regulation (EU) No 904/2010, enhancing data exchange between tax authorities, including information on intra-EU supplies, B2C transactions, and e-commerce platforms.

Centralized information portals will be established, allowing businesses to submit data on cross-border transactions in a single system rather than interacting separately with each national authority.

3. Expansion of One-Stop Shop (OSS)

The OSS and Import One-Stop Shop (IOSS) mechanisms, introduced in the EU E-Commerce VAT Package (Directive (EU) 2017/2455 and Directive (EU) 2019/1995), may be further expanded to cover additional types of goods and services, allowing businesses to register in a single Member State and report VAT obligations across the entire EU.

---

IV. Implications for Bulgaria

1. Value-Added Tax Act (ZDDS)

Bulgaria has transposed the main requirements of Council Directive 2006/112/EC into its national legislation through the Value Added Tax Act. In light of the official adoption of ViDA by the Council of the EU, Bulgaria must adapt its legislation to the new requirements, including the implementation of mandatory e-invoicing and its technical standards, updates to the procedures for reporting intra-Community and remote sales, and the expansion of the OSS/IOSS framework within the national context.

The deadlines for transposing the new provisions into national legislation will be determined by the adopted implementation timeline for ViDA across the Member States.

2. Administrative Readiness and Oversight

The National Revenue Agency (NRA) and the Ministry of Finance will need to modernize real-time electronic data processing systems, enhance cooperation with EU tax administrations, and provide training for officials in big data analytics and VAT fraud detection.

3. Impact on Businesses

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) engaged in cross-border sales will benefit from simplified VAT reporting via a single portal but will need to adapt to e-invoicing requirements.  Large enterprises operating in multiple countries will reduce compliance costs thanks to harmonized electronic reporting. The implementation of new e-invoicing software may pose an initial challenge, but it will contribute to greater transparency, fewer errors, and a reduced risk of fraud.

---

V. Challenges and Expectations

1. Legislative Process and Unanimity

After the official adoption of ViDA, Member States must initiate the transposition and implementation process of the new provisions. Although ViDA has already been adopted at the EU level, its successful application depends on the swift and effective adaptation into national legislation.

Delays in transposition could lead to misalignment with EU requirements and potential sanctions, making efficient preparation crucial.

2. Synchronization with Existing Practices

The transition to a unified e-invoicing platform and the expanded application of OSS/IOSS will require an adaptation period, particularly for companies with limited IT resources. The key challenges will include:

– Integration of new technical standards for e-invoicing with national IT systems;

– Training for businesses and accounting professionals, who will need to adopt the new reporting systems;

– Avoiding legal conflicts with other regulations, ensuring consistent harmonization with European directives and national tax requirements.

3. Fraud Prevention

One of the key objectives of the VAT in the Digital Agе package is to reduce VAT fraud, particularly in cross-border transactions, including Missing Trader Intra-Community (MTIC) fraud.

With the adoption of COM(2022) 703 final, administrative cooperation among tax authorities in the EU will be strengthened, enabling more efficient data exchange, enhanced VAT transaction tracking, and the possibility of joint tax audits.

---

Conclusion

With the official adoption of the “VAT in the Digital Age” package, the European Union is taking a key step towards modernizing the VAT system in line with the realities of the digital economy. The new provisions will facilitate cross-border transactions, enhance administrative cooperation, and reduce the risk of fraud through electronic invoicing and improved transaction traceability.

With the adoption of ViDA, Bulgaria faces the need to transpose the new rules into its national legislation and strengthen its administrative and technological capacity.

For Bulgarian businesses, the reforms offer a more transparent and simplified process, but they also impose requirements for timely adaptation to electronic invoicing and reporting. Timely preparation and effective communication with businesses will be key to the successful implementation of the new provisions.

---

Main Sources and Additional Information

Council of the European Union

– Council adopts VAT in the digital age package https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2025/03/11/taxation-council-adopts-vat-in-the-digital-age-package/

– Digital Taxation / VAT https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-taxation/#VAT

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value-added tax
Directive 2006/112/EC (VAT Directive)

“VAT in the Digital Age” (ViDA) Package (2022)

– COM(2022) 701 final https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022PC0701

– COM(2022) 703 final https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022PC0703

– COM(2022) 704 final https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022PC0704

Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 on administrative cooperation and combating VAT fraud https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32010R0904

Value Added Tax Act (VAT Act – Bulgaria) https://old.nra.bg/en/document?id=423

National Revenue Agency (NRA) – Bulgaria https://nra.bg/

The digital economy is playing an increasingly important role in global and European markets, with leading technology companies often generating substantial revenues in certain EU Member States without having a physical presence there. The traditional corporate taxation rules set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in national legislation do not always adequately reflect the realities of digital business models. As a result, at the level of the European Union and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, new mechanisms for “digital taxation” are being discussed and proposed.

The purpose of this article is to outline the main EU legal acts and initiatives in the area of digital services taxation, to highlight their importance for Bulgaria, and to provide a legal context for possible changes in national legislation.

---

I. EU-level Legal Framework

Legislative competence in the field of taxation within the EU is limited by the general principle that direct taxation remains under the authority of the Member States. However, Article 113 of the TFEU allows the EU to adopt directives concerning the harmonization of indirect taxes, insofar as this is necessary for the functioning of the internal market and the avoidance of distortions of competition, and where there are significant divergences affecting the single market.

Two Key Legislative Proposals by the Commission in 2018

In 2018, the European Commission introduced two legislative acts that marked the start of intensified debate on digital taxation in Europe:

– COM(2018) 147 final – Proposal for a Council Directive on a common system of a digital services tax (DST), focusing on taxing revenues from certain digital activities. The proposal provided for a 3% tax rate on revenue from online advertising, the sale of user data, and online intermediary platforms, generated in the Member States.

– COM(2018) 148 final – Proposal for a Council Directive laying down rules relating to the corporate taxation of a significant digital presence. This proposal aims at a more long-term solution, tied to recognizing “digital presence” as a criterion for tax jurisdiction.

Although the first initiative was conceived as a temporary measure and the second sought a lasting structural solution, neither gained unanimous approval. Discussions subsequently shifted to the OECD’s global framework.

In its conclusions of 27 May 2022 and other official documents, the Council underscored the need for common measures to prevent tax competition and aggressive tax practices within the EU. However, it acknowledged the complexity of reaching a compromise, given the requirement for unanimity among all Member States (Article 115 TFEU).

Administrative Cooperation Among Member States

Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation (DAC), along with its series of amendments (Directive (EU) 2018/822, Directive (EU) 2020/876, Directive (EU) 2021/514, etc.), expands the scope of information exchange among Member States.

In the context of digital taxation, this administrative cooperation is crucial. Many digital services are provided across borders without a clear physical link to customers in individual countries. Thus, the European Commission emphasizes that only through enhanced data sharing (e.g., on online transactions, user registrations, financial flows) can Member States identify and fairly tax the relevant revenues.

Global Context: Coordination with the OECD

In parallel with European legislative activity, the G20 countries and the OECD Member States are working on a “Two-Pillar Approach” (Pillar One and Pillar Two):

– Pillar One aims to redistribute part of the profits of major multinational companies to the countries where they have users or derive revenue but do not have a physical presence.

– Pillar Two involves introducing a global minimum corporate tax rate (commonly discussed at around 15%) to prevent artificial profit shifting to low-tax jurisdictions.

The EU is closely following these processes in order to adapt a possible European digital tax in line with global standards and to avoid overlap or conflicts.

Significance for the Internal Market and Protection Against Tax Abuse

The objective of EU-wide initiatives is to prevent a situation where some Member States introduce their own “digital taxes” while others do not, which could create a risk of fragmentation within the internal market and unfair competition.

---

II. Significance and Impact on Bulgaria

Establishing a unified regulatory framework for taxing digital services creates the need of analyzing the existing Bulgarian legislation and its potential adaptation. Currently, national legislation governing corporate taxation is mainly contained in the Corporate Income Tax Act and the Tax and Social Insurance Procedure Code. 

1. Current Legal Situation

1.1 Definition of a Permanent Establishment

Bulgarian law relies on the traditional concept of “permanent establishment” to determine whether a foreign company is subject to corporate taxation in the country. This concept is laid down in the Corporate Income Tax Act as well as in numerous Double Taxation Conventions. However, it does not fully cover digital business models in which a company may have no physical presence yet still generates revenue from customers in Bulgaria.

1.2 Absence of Explicit Regulation on “Digital Presence”

Neither the Corporate Income Tax Act nor the Tax and Social Insurance Procedure Code contain a precise definition or rules regarding a Significant Digital Presence. Consequently, tax authorities often find it difficult to justify taxing companies providing online services without a physical infrastructure in place.

1.3 Tax Conventions and the Application of DTTs

In cross-border operations, existing bilateral double taxation conventions apply. Most of these conventions include traditional clauses based on the OECD Model, which also focuses on physical presence. Thus, there is no explicit provision on how to allocate taxing rights for revenues derived from digital sources.

2. Potential Implementation of New Legislation

2.1 Legislative Amendments in the Corporate Income Tax Act

Introducing European or global rules for digital services taxation may require a new section or chapters in the Corporate Income Tax Act dealing with:

– Criteria for “Significant Digital Presence,” such as thresholds for annual turnover, number of users, or other indicators of online economic presence;

– Mechanisms for calculating the tax base for these companies, particularly if the services provided span multiple Member States;

– The tax rate or calculation method (if the EU or OECD proposes specific parameters, akin to the 3% DST or a common approach for profit allocation).

2.2 Procedural Amendments in the Tax and Social Insurance Procedure Code

Effective implementation of the new regime would require procedural provisions regarding:

– Administrative cooperation and information exchange among the tax authorities of the Member States (in addition to the existing rules under Directive 2011/16/EU);

– Control over taxable operations, e.g., an obligation for local entities (clients, advertisers, users) to declare or report services received/provided from companies subject to digital taxation;

– Dispute resolution, as tax audits and disputes over establishing foreign companies’ liabilities often involve international arbitration or EU dispute settlement mechanisms (pursuant to Directive (EU) 2017/1852).

---

Conclusion

At this stage, the European Union has not adopted a unanimous decision on a common mechanism for taxing digital services, and on a global level, negotiations within the OECD framework have yet to conclude with binding agreements. Therefore, there is no formally established schedule for introducing either EU-wide or global rules. If the Council of the EU reaches consensus, Member States could adopt the relevant legislation within a few years following a political agreement. Should global standards be endorsed by the OECD, they could be implemented once ratified by individual jurisdictions.

If the concept of “Significant Digital Presence” is accepted, introducing a common or harmonized taxation framework would require additional provisions in Bulgarian legislation – primarily the Corporate Income Tax Act and the Tax and Social Insurance Procedure Code – and an adaptation of administrative capacity to monitor online business models. If the EU proceeds with such a decision, any corresponding legislative amendments in Bulgaria would need to be consistent with the provisions set out in bilateral and multilateral double taxation conventions.

---

Sources:

Council of the European Union – Digital Taxation

COM(2018) 147 final – Proposal for a Council Directive on a common system of a digital services tax (Digital Services Tax)

COM(2018) 148 final – Proposal for a Council Directive laying down rules relating to the corporate taxation of a significant digital presence

Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation (DAC) and subsequent amendments

– Main text (2011/16/EU)

– Latest amendment: Directive (EU) 2021/514 (DAC7)

Corporate Income Tax Act

Tax and Social Insurance Procedure Code

OECD – Negotiations on the Two-Pillar Approach (Pillar One and Pillar Two)

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has made a landmark decision that reinforces the importance of safeguarding personal rights in law enforcement practices. In a ruling directed at Bulgaria’s Ministry of Interior, the CJEU stressed the need to prove the “absolute necessity” for collecting biometric data, such as DNA samples and fingerprints, during police registration of individuals accused of intentional crimes of a general nature.

This decision signifies a critical shift in how sensitive personal data is handled within the European Union. It establishes that the systematic collection of such data cannot be justified without a clear, case-specific rationale. Law enforcement agencies cannot rely on blanket policies to collect data; instead, they must demonstrate the necessity of each instance, ensuring that individual rights are not violated unnecessarily.

This judgment reinforces the principle that systematic collection of sensitive personal data cannot proceed absent specific, case-by-case justification. The Court unequivocally established that the burden of proving such necessity rests solely with the Ministry of Interior, removing any presumption that courts reviewing requests for mandatory registration should independently assess the justification for these measures. This delineation of roles ensures that judicial bodies act as impartial arbiters, evaluating evidence provided by law enforcement.

The CJEU’s decision resonates far beyond the borders of Bulgaria, it reflects broader European values that prioritize the protection of personal data and privacy. In recent years, the European Union has placed increasing emphasis on ensuring a balance between the requirements of public safety and the rights of individuals. This decision is a continuation of that commitment, reaffirming the principle that security measures should not disproportionately infringe upon the fundamental rights of citizens.

From a legal perspective, this case has significant implications for the interpretation and application of national and European law. It sets a precedent for law enforcement agencies across the EU, requiring greater scrutiny of practices involving the collection and storage of biometric data. Furthermore, it highlights the growing importance of personal data protection in an age of rapid technological advancement, where sensitive information can easily be misused if not adequately safeguarded.

This ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union serves as a critical reminder of the delicate balance between public safety and individual rights. By emphasizing the principle of necessity and the need for clear justification, the Court has reinforced the importance of protecting personal data and upholding privacy standards across the EU. The decision not only sets a high bar for law enforcement practices but also reaffirms the foundational values of European legal systems, ensuring that the protection of individual freedoms remains central to all security measures. As this precedent continues to shape the legal landscape, it underscores the ongoing commitment to safeguarding rights in an era of rapid technological change.

Mr. Stanislav Koev, attorney-at-law from Koev&Co Law firm represented Issam Anbouba in his case Anbouba III against the EU sanctions – T-471/22 in front of the General Court of European Union that partially reversed the practice after the cases Anbouba I and Anbouba II.

More about the case was published in the Bulgarian apge for legal information lex.bg. Link tot the publication cane be found here:  https://Anbouba Lex.

Koev&Co. Law Firm supported the team of Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridski in its successful participation in the 2024 edition of the Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition. The team consists of the following law students – Anatali Georgieva, Antonio Dafinov, Joanna Dimitrova, Sofia Donskaya and Tanya Marinova, and their team advisors Veliana Kuncheva, Simona Mokreva, Vyara Hristova and Momchil Milanov. We are proud to announce that representatives of the law firm are part of the team and their advisors.

Competing with representatives from approximately 700 universities around the world, the team demonstrated exceptional legal knowledge, which earned them recognition from international judges and a prestigious 23rd place ranking for the best written submissions for applicant and respondent.

The competition, named after the famous judge at the International Court of Justice – Philip C. Jessup, originated in 1960 at Harvard. Over the years it has gained global popularity. At the moment, the most prestigious universities in the world compete in the Jessup. Bulgaria’s participation began in 1984, and this year’s performance is another success for the team of Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”.

The law competition for students is a simulation of a trial before the International Court of Justice. Every year in the month of September, a case is published, provoked by current topics from the “gray zone” of international law, on which the participants argue from the positions of the applicant and the respondent. This year, the case focused on the admissibility of claims before the ICJ, the consequences of statelessness, consular protection for persons with multiple citizenships, as well as the competence of the UN Security Council in the peaceful settlement of disputes.

Koev&Co Law Firm advised Skoda Transportation a.s. on the participation of the producer in the public procurement of Ministry of transport of Bulgaria for the delivery of 35 single-deck electric train units. The estimated tender value announced by the Ministry equals to the amount of BGN 1 108 747 490,77.

Koev&Co lawyers team as representatives and legal consultants of Skoda Transportation a.s. provided full information and clarifications about the requirement of the contracting authority. We also represented the company within the procedures for challenging the tender discriminatory conditions before the Commission for the Protection of Competition and the Supreme Administrative Court.

An interview of Mr. Koev for Bulgarian international media 24hours from 11th February, 2022.

The imposition of sanctions protects democratic principles and puts pressure on regimes that are a threat to human rights and international peace, but this tool must be used carefully because it can have unforeseen “side effects” and must also be part of a more complex actions – no power has fallen simply because punishments have been imposed on it.

Stanislav Koev, attorney-at-law, has over 10 years of experience in sanction legislation. Koev&Co Law office represents sanctioned persons before the authorities of the European Union, USA, Great Britain and Switzerland.

Read the full statement below:

– Mr. Koev, what are the sanctions currently imposed in the EU?

– Sanctions imposed by the European Union are the actual instrument for implementing the policies of the Union after the relevant decision has been taken by the Council of the European Union. Usually, they are related to a certain political situation, decisions or actions of the governing authority in the country concerned, regarding significant violations of human rights, violence against the civilian population, obstruction of the right to peaceful protests, ethnic cleansing, genocide, violations of territorial integrity, etc. . They represent a limitation of the possibility of natural persons, on whom they are imposed, to reside or transit through the territory of the Union and lead to the freezing of all their financial and economic assets located in the territory of the EU. The grounds are usually that these individuals support and finance the country’s political system or derive benefits from it.

On the other hand, imposing sanctions on banks, state institutions, public and private companies prevents the sanctioned persons from financing or carrying out transactions with a certain type of goods, most often weapons, ammunition, dual-use goods and energy sources. The purpose of the sanctions is to protect the generally accepted principles of democracy and the rule of law, and to influence the relevant governing political system in that country, forcing it to take action to restore peace, preserve the health and lives of its citizens, introduce of democratic standards.

– Is the applied mechanism for imposing sanctions working in your opinion?

– We have been dealing with cases in the field of sanctions imposed by the EU for over 10 years. At the beginning, we focused on the representation of citizens – businessmen and political figures, as well as companies and legal entities subject to sanctions imposed along the so-called Arab Spring after 2011. Today, due to the increased use of this tool by the Council of the European Union, people and organizations from many more countries need protection, including citizens and individuals of the Russian Federation and Belarus.

So far, we have not witnessed the fall of any power as a result of the sanctions regimes. At the same time, it cannot be denied that they deprive the ruling political system of access to financial and economic resources, weapons and ammunition, which improves the situation of the peaceful population in the respective country and contributes to the observance of human rights.

– What should be the approach of the European Union in the imposition of sanctions?

– First of all, the sanctions should have a clear purpose – what is being pursued with them and in what period do we expect this to happen. The endless extension of their validity periods renders their imposition meaningless and compromises the political position of the Union. The approach should be strictly individual with a complete analysis of the activity of the person subject to the sanctions, supported by real and indisputable facts and evidence. As much as the imposed measures could contribute to the distancing of certain persons from the political and business life of a given country, they could also unreasonably harm these persons, which is a measure disproportionate to the desired effect. Sanctions that aim to protect the life and health of the civilian population in a country should not result in limiting the sanctioned person’s access to life-saving medical care, as was the case here.

On the other hand, the EU should improve its mechanisms for checking and controlling the imposed sanctions. Sanctioned persons should have the possibility of legal protection within the framework of accelerated procedures and deadlines. At the moment, the legal procedure, including the two-instance proceedings before the Luxembourg Court, takes more than two years.

In addition, in our practice we have witnessed situations in which sanctions are imposed not because of specific actions of individuals, but because of their social and economic status. As an example, I would like to give a case where our client was sanctioned on the grounds that he was a “successful and well-known businessman” in his country. The EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg, in a case led by us, issued a decision obliging each case of a sanctioned person to be considered strictly individually. This practically means that the Court did not allow the Council of the EU to impose sanctions on persons who were successful businessmen in their countries, only because of this fact, and the Council is obliged to have evidence of the existence of specific actions by which the sanctioned person supports the rulers of his country or participates in repression against the civilian population.

As I have already said, before any sanctions are imposed, the type and scale of the measures to be taken should be carefully considered. Also, an individual assessment of the situation and behavior of each of the persons to be sanctioned must be made. Sometimes the measures can cause more harm than good because the Union does not offer any alternative for the sanctioned person. In an attempt to protect himself, the sanctioned is often forced to distance himself from the political administration of his own country, which usually leads to immediate reprisals and from the political system there itself. Given that his ability to travel and his access to funds are completely restricted, he has no choice but to remain in his country, where he and his family will be persecuted by the local authorities.

– If we return to the context with Russia and relations with the EU at the moment, what should the Council of the EU take into account before deciding whether to impose further and additional sanctions on Russia?

– The European Union should be extremely careful when making a decision to expand the circle of sanctioned persons from Russia. In connection with the situation in Ukraine, financial and other measures have already been imposed on 185 individuals and 48 entities that the EU considers responsible for undermining the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine. In the past few days, both the United States and the United Kingdom have announced that they are ready with the new measures they plan to impose on Russian politicians and other individuals. The EU must think carefully about its actions, because sanctioning a wider range of individuals hides pitfalls for both the European economy and the Union’s banking system. The two economies – the Russian and the EU’s – are closely linked, and we should not forget the fact that Europe is highly dependent on Russian energy sources. On the other hand, the imposition of sanctions on political figures will automatically result in hindering the opportunities for dialogue and diplomatic relations between the disputing parties. Negotiations are always the better choice than any sanctions or military action. The Union’s clear position, expressed in clarifying the necessity of the imposed sanctions, the objectives they pursue and the time limits for which they are imposed, will contribute to their effectiveness and strengthen the status of the European Union at the same time, both as a world leader and as a guarantor to comply with the international legal order established by the relevant international treaties.

You can access the interview here: https://www.24chasa.bg/bulgaria/article/10859933

 

We are honoured that Mr Stanislav Koev, attorney-at-law and Koev&Co Law Firm took part in the XXX Congress of the International Federation of European Law (FIDE). The Congress was opened with the welcome speeches of the President of FIDE 2021-2023 and President of the First Chamber of the Court of the European Union –Alexander Arabadzhiev, the President of the Republic of Bulgaria – Rumen Radev, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Union – Koen Lenaerts, and the President of the General Court of European Union – Marc van der Woude.

In the course of 5 days, from May 31^st to June 3^rd, with the participation of judges from the EU Courts, senior officials in the services of the Union, lawyers and professors from the member states, discussions and working groups were successfully held on three main topics of essential importance for the development of European law: Mutual Trust, Mutual Recognition and the Rule of Law, The new geopolitical dimension of the EU competition and trade policies and European Social Union.

We wish success at the next XXXI FIDE Congress in Poland in 2025.

 

The EU trademark MESSI filled by the football player Lionel Messi, combined, with TM № 010181154 may be registered after being refused by the Opposition Division (OD) of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) with a decision upheld by the Board of Appeals (BoA) due to likelihood of confusion with earlier marks MASSI.

Dispute history

In August 2011, Lionel Messi applied for registration of the EU figurative mark “MESSI” for goods of classes 9, 25 and 28. On 23.11.2011 an opposition was filed against the registration of the mark based on earlier word marks MASSI, registered for goods in classes 9, 25 or 28, pursuant to Article 8 (1) (b) CTMR. The Opposition Division granted the opposition with a decision subsequently upheld by the Board of Appeal.

According to the BoA decision, there is likelihood of confusion between the word marks MASSI and the figurative mark of Lionel Messi MESSI due to the identity or similarity of the goods and the similarity of the signs. It is considered that the marks are similar, since their dominant elements, consisting of the words ‘massi’ and ‘messi’, are almost identical visually and phonetically, and that any conceptual differentiation will be made only, if at all, by some of the relevant consumers.

Lionel Messi has appealed to the EU General Court, which has upheld the appeal. The General Court held that the BoA finding of conceptual comparison of the signs was incorrect. According to the General Court, Lionel Messi is recognized worldwide as a famous footballer and is a celebrity who is known to the majority of relevant users, as his name is well known, which circumstance BoA had to take into account. The Court found that it was unlikely that the average consumer would, in most cases, associate the term ‘MESSI’ with an Italian mark and not with the player’s name, and that the signs were thus conceptually distinctly different. The General Court concluded that, despite the similarity or identity of the goods, it was a fact that the essential conceptual differences counteracted the visual and phonetic similarities, so that the degree of similarity between the signs was not sufficient to establish the likelihood of confusion.

EUIPO and the opponent appealed against that decision to the Court of Justice of the European Union, which dismissed both actions on the following grounds:

In the context of the conceptual comparison of the signs, the General Court was right to hold that, while acknowledging that it is possible that several consumers had never heard of Mr. Messi Cuccini or had never remembered hearing of him, this this would not be the case for the normally attentive, well-informed average consumer who has purchased articles or sportswear from the goods applied for registration. Thus, the Court has accepted that only a small part of the relevant audience will not directly associate the word ‘messi’ with the famous football player. In the context of the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion and in particular the possibility that the conceptual differences between the signs counteract the visual and phonetic similarities of these signs, the Court of Justice has confirmed that Messi’s reputation is such that not only consumers interested in sports, will make a connection between the term MESSI and the footballer’s name.

Therefore, in the light of the general public’s perception of the marks, the Court found that BoA had erred in finding that there was likelihood of confusion between the two marks. The Court in fact held that the reputation or recognition of the earlier mark must also be taken into account in assessing the likelihood of confusion. However, it must also be taken into account whether the person who wishes his name to be registered as trade mark is well known, as this factor can obviously influence the perception of the trade mark by the relevant public.

The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union is final.

Source: European Union Intellectual Property Office https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearchCLW/#basic/*/09%2F09%2F2020/09%2F10%2F2020/number/