In the digital economy, a company’s identity, original content and commercial positioning may be copied long before the formal registration of its intellectual property rights is completed. In such circumstances, waiting for the final resolution of ordinary court proceedings may allow the infringement to continue, increasing customer confusion, diverting online traffic and progressively weakening the affected company’s market position.

Our team recently represented a technology company in a dispute involving competing websites that used highly similar domain names and reproduced key elements of the client’s online platforms. The similarities concerned not only the names used online, but also written content, visual elements, website structure, descriptions of services and the overall manner in which the digital products were presented to potential customers.

At the time the proceedings were initiated, the client’s trademark applications were still pending before the Romanian State Office for Inventions and Trademarks (OSIM). The client could not therefore rely exclusively on the rights conferred by a registered trademark. This required a broader legal strategy combining copyright protection, unfair competition rules and the procedural remedies available under Romanian law for the urgent protection of intellectual property rights.

The legal framework for interim protection

The request for the temporary shutdown of the competing websites was based on several complementary provisions of Romanian law.

First, Article 997 of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure regulates the general procedure of the interim injunction. It allows a court to order temporary measures in urgent cases where there is an appearance of right and where the measure is necessary to preserve a right or prevent imminent harm that would be difficult to repair. The measure must remain temporary and may neither determine the merits of the dispute nor make it impossible to restore the previous situation.

Second, Article 979 of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure, governing provisional measures in intellectual property matters, allows the holder of an intellectual property right to request urgent judicial protection where credible evidence indicates an actual or imminent infringement capable of causing harm that would be difficult to repair. Articles 979 and 997 of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure were expressly examined by the Court of Appeal when assessing the appearance of right, urgency, temporary nature of the measures and risk of irreparable harm.

The copyright arguments accepted at first instance were based on Article 7(a) and Article 7(g) of Law no. 8/1996 on Copyright and Related Rights. Article 7(a) protects original written works and computer programs, while Article 7(g) covers graphic works, designs and other works of applied art.

The application also relied on Article 188(3)(a) and Article 188(4) of Law no. 8/1996, which permit the court to prohibit an infringement or order its temporary cessation where credible evidence demonstrates an actual or imminent unlawful action and a risk of harm that would be difficult to repair. The procedural rules applicable to such measures are those governing provisional measures in intellectual property matters under the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure.

The wider commercial context was also assessed from the perspective of Articles 1 and 2 of Law no. 11/1991 on Combating Unfair Competition. These provisions require businesses to act in accordance with honest commercial practices and the general principle of good faith and prohibit commercial practices that breach these standards and cause or may cause harm to other market participants.

In particular, Article 2(1) and Article 2(2)(c) of Law no. 11/1991 cover commercial conduct contrary to honest practices and good faith, including other unfair practices capable of causing damage to market participants. These provisions are relevant where a competitor does not merely offer a similar service but imitates the commercial presentation, content and digital identity previously developed by another business.

Urgent protection obtained before trademark registration

Through interim injunction proceedings, our team requested the temporary cessation of the operation of the competing websites until the underlying dispute could be resolved on the merits.

We demonstrated that each day of continued operation increased the likelihood of confusion, redirected potential customers and online traffic, and progressively affected the client’s commercial identity and competitive position. In the online environment, such effects may be particularly difficult to reverse, as domain names can immediately direct users toward a competing service and create an association between that service and an established digital product.

At first instance, the court expressly observed that the pending OSIM applications did not yet confer the rights arising from a registered trademark. Nevertheless, the court found that the evidence indicated substantial copying of the client’s website content and imitation of its visual elements, including its logo.

The court concluded that the matter went beyond the parallel use of descriptive terminology and concerned the imitation of a digital product independently created and previously placed on the market by the client. The appearance of right was therefore established on the basis of copyright protection, even though the trademark registration procedure had not yet been completed.

Consequently, the court ordered the temporary shutdown of one of the competing websites until the resolution of the substantive proceedings.

This distinction is legally important. A pending trademark application does not automatically confer all the exclusive rights associated with a registered trademark. However, the absence of completed registration does not necessarily leave a business without protection where original content, visual elements, prior use, imitation and a credible risk of confusion can be demonstrated.

Protection extended on appeal

During the appeal proceedings, the client’s trademarks were formally registered with OSIM. The legal analysis was therefore reinforced by Article 36(1) and Article 36(2)(b) of Law no. 84/1998 on Trademarks and Geographical Indications.

Article 36(1) provides that trademark registration grants its holder an exclusive right. Under Article 36(2)(b), the trademark owner may request that third parties be prohibited from using, in commercial activities and without consent, an identical or similar sign where the identity or similarity of the signs and services creates a likelihood of confusion, including a likelihood of association.

The Court of Appeal emphasized the particular role of domain names in the digital environment. A domain name functions both as an online address and as an instrument of commercial identification, capable of immediately directing traffic and creating an association between a sign and a particular service provider.

The Court of Appeal further held that harm in trademark disputes is not limited to immediately quantifiable financial losses. It may also include dilution of distinctiveness, diversion of customers, impairment of the trademark’s function of indicating commercial origin and erosion of the connection between the protected sign and its rightful owner.

The Court of Appeal therefore confirmed the need for urgent protection and extended the interim measure to the second competing website. As a result, the operation of both websites was suspended pending resolution of the substantive dispute.

Following the successful interim proceedings, our team continued to assist the client during mediation. The negotiations resulted in a settlement providing for the permanent closure of the competing websites and the payment of compensation to the client for the harm suffered.

The mediated settlement transformed the provisional judicial protection into a definitive and commercially effective resolution. It eliminated the continuing risk of confusion, secured the permanent cessation of the disputed online activities and enabled the client to recover compensation without the costs and uncertainty associated with prolonged proceedings on the merits.

Practical significance for online businesses

This case illustrates the importance of a coordinated legal strategy in disputes involving website copying, similar domain names, trademark infringement and unfair competition.

Trademark registration remains an essential step in protecting a business identity. However, where registration is still pending, other legal mechanisms may provide effective protection, particularly when the affected business can demonstrate:

  • prior use of the relevant commercial identity and domain names;
  • ownership of original written, graphic or digital content;
  • substantial similarities between the original and competing websites;
  • copying of texts, visual elements, website structure or service descriptions;
  • a credible likelihood of confusion or association among users;
  • diversion of customers or online traffic; and
  • an imminent risk of harm that would be difficult to repair through damages alone.

Businesses should therefore preserve clear evidence concerning website creation, domain ownership, source files, original content, graphic design, publication dates, commercial use, correspondence and specific instances of customer confusion.

Where the infringement is ongoing, rapid action through an interim injunction under Articles 979 and 997 of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure, combined with the protections available under Law no. 8/1996, Law no. 11/1991 and Law no. 84/1998, may be decisive in securing digital assets, combating unfair competition and protecting a company’s commercial reputation.