A special report on the activities of the Antimonopoly Committee’s Office to Prevent Unfair Competition
What a businessman does when he wants to promote his product on the market, make it recognizable, and build up his own customer base? That’s right, he invests intellectual and material resources in branding his projects. It often takes years to gain the trust of potential consumers of products. On this, a genuine “name” of the company, trade mark, and the businessman itself is created. Among business circles, such entrepreneur are often called as “a self-respecting person.”
But there is a category of very enterprising people who compromise the concept of “respect” for the sake of quick money.
Appeals of such enterprising businessmen who breach the intellectual property rights of other entities which lead to unfair competition are considered by the Unfair competition tackling department of the Antimonopoly Committee. And by the way, each of us daily face with unfair competition signs on the shelves of shops or markets.
The Uzbek-Turkish JV “XONQA BILLUR SALT”, located in the Khanka district of Khorezm region, has been presenting edible iodized salt on the market for more than 20 years. More frequent cases of plagiarism of their trademark by other unscrupulous manufacturers undermine the credibility of the enterprise and its products.
DILSHOD OTAZHONOV – Head of JV “XONQA BILLUR SALT”
– We launched 23 years ago and in addition to saturating the domestic market, we are exporting our products to Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Afghanistan. Our salt is known to consumers under ‘Saodat’ trademark. This brand, as well as the product packaging itself, are patented by the Intellectual Property Agency. But it’s a shame when other manufacturers, moreover, clandestine producers, make goods that are similar in appearance and name to ours. As a result, consumers buy goods thinking that they are of our production, and then call us with complaints about the bad quality of salt. In this way, we have identified several addresses in Khorezm, Bukhara regions and in the Republic of Karakalpakstan, where our brand is forged and sold.
The manufacturer, whose authority has suffered greatly, says that he himself has repeatedly tried to resolve the issue, appealing to the conscience of such unscrupulous competitors and met a complete indifference to the honestly earned reputation.
DILSHOD OTAZHONOV – Head of JV “XONQA BILLUR SALT”
– When we contact such manufacturers directly, we explain that we have been working for more than 20 years to gain people’s trust and that they should also try to work honestly and develop their own brand. Their answer is that they will do it in their own way. To be honest, we didn’t know where to turn. As a result, we submitted an appeal to the Khorezm Regional Department of the Antimonopoly Committee, where our application was reviewed.
Such statements by economic entities are reviewed by the Unfair Competition tackling department of the Antimonopoly Committee. JV “XONQA BILLUR SALT” appeal was studied in the Regional Department of the Antimonopoly Committee. The private enterprise “SHOVAT WHITE SALT” produced edible salt under the trade name Sadaf, which is confusingly similar to the applicant’s brand. The most important thing is that people buying plagiarism were dissatisfied with the quality of the products and all complaints were directed towards the Saodat salt producer, that is, the brand owner.
In response to a request for an expert assessment of the received copies of salt, the Intellectual Property Agency issued an opinion. According to which a product called “Sadaf” from a private enterprise “SHOVAT WHITE SALT” is recognized to be confusingly similar to the “Saodat” brand from the JV “XONQA BILLUR SALT”.
PIRNAZAR NURULLAEV – Head of the Khorezm Regional Department of the Antimonopoly Committee
– In accordance with part 3 of Article 26 of the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On Trademarks, Service Marks and Appellations of Origin of Goods”, the defendant’s violation was recognized on the subject of the introduction into civil circulation of a trademark imitating another registered brand and thereby misleading consumers. According to Article 13 of the Law “On Competition”, in accordance with the requirements of the Regulation approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan dated October 12, 2005 No. 225, the Khorezm Regional Department of the Committee opened a case against “SHOVAT WHITE SALT”. As a result, the Special Commission issued an order to the defendant to eliminate violations in relation to the trade brand of the JV “XONQA BILLUR SALT”.
Last year, the Department of Unfair Competition of the Antimonopoly Committee received 242 applications from economic entities against legal entities that violated Article 13 of the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On Competition”. And despite the strengthened quarantine regime, the number of requests increased by more than 24 percent compared to 2019. The total number of initiated cases in 2020 was 78, 48 of which were found to be offenders. On 18 applications, initiation of cases was denied, explanations were given on 109.
ZUMRAD RAZIKBAYEV – Chief Specialist of AMK
– The question may arise: why is the number of applications received is large, and recognition is three times less? Not in all cases the complainants prove signs of a violation. So we have to write requests. Some appellants answer, some no longer apply. Or, during the consideration of the preliminary study, these signs are not confirmed by the facts, and therefore we refuse to initiate a case. There is a special commission on the established facts of violation in the Committee. It considers and makes decisions, the corresponding prescription, which must be executed. And who does not face administrative measures – the protocol is adopted and submitted to the appropriate court.
If we divide all calls into areas of activity, then the first in the list is the manufacturers of confectionery products. Their brands and trade names are most often counterfeited. Consumers just need to be vigilant when shopping in stores, markets and large bazaars, as dishonest competitors have gotten used to imitating global brands of chocolate products. The second on the list are pharmaceutical manufacturers. The trade names of the most popular drugs have been simulated so much that the owners of intellectual property do not have time to keep track of the next plagiarism in the industry.
ZUMRAD RAZIKBAYEV – Chief Specialist of AMK
– We have persistent violators who constantly repeat the global brands of the Sanofi company – the French company or the Ukrainian Yuria Pharm. Suppose we have an enterprise in Namangan “Merrymed”, which has all foreign names, trademarks, they either put the letters MR in front or behind and thus produce their products.
Elderly and children suffer the most on plug-in of someone else’s trademark. Although people between the ages of 25 and 40 analyze the goods more thoroughly, still cases of a wrong purchase are not isolated here either.
NILUFAR RASULOVA – consumer
The main document on which we rely in the consideration of cases of plagiarism of intellectual property, we repeat, the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On Competition”, in particular its 13th article. In accordance with it, the prohibition includes activities that mislead consumers about the nature, method and place of production of consumer properties of goods, prices, quality, manufacturer’s warranty obligations, imitation of goods introduced into civil circulation by a business entity, by reproducing the external design of the goods and its forms, names, markings, labels, packaging, colors or other elements that individualize the goods of an economic entity.
And in this regard, there is one very important information. In order for the Antimonopoly Committee to consider an appeal on the grounds of unfair competition, the participants in the case must represent one product market. If the commodity markets are different, then the applications are considered directly in court.
ZUMRAD RAZIKBAYEV – Chief Specialist of AMK
– For example, we considered the issue when it released poultry meat, and the other side released processed cheese. The trademarks were “Al Safi” and “Safi”. Yes, here the words “Safi” are identical, but since the products of different markets are not our question. When we refused the applicant, they went to court. We had to lose two court instances – the district and the city, because we could not explain the judges the matter of case. But in the end, in the Supreme Court we finally won. That is, the decision of the first and second instance was canceled and the decision of the Antimonopoly Authority was upheld.
Uzbek folk wisdom says: that bread is tastier than bought with honestly earned money. In pursuit of quick cash, how often does a manufacturer or trader think about it? The question is rhetorical, because the majority of the first time and do not admit that they illegally used someone else’s intellectual property. A pragmatic and honest businessman will bet on creating his own brand, which, with investments in quality, will not feed a year or two, but will become a constanta of business success.
Dear Entrepreneurs! If your intellectual property product is being illegally used by unscrupulous competitors, please contact the Antimonopoly Committee via the details provided.
Press office of the Antimonopoly Committee