Green Dot Malta ‘vindicated’ over GRTU subsidiary company

Green Dot Malta Ltd, the company licensed to operate a waste recovery scheme, welcomed a court decision that declared the name Green.Mt Ltd, a subsidiary of the Chamber of SMEs (GRTU) amounted to unfair competition.

“The court’s decision which declared that the GRTU subsidiary company has to destroy immediately any material bearing the name Green.Mt Ltd, and Green.Mt Ltd’s ongoing operation without a MEPA licence, are just two examples that show the irresponsible behaviour and unfair competition that our GreenPak Scheme has been constantly facing,” Green Dot chief executive Mario Schembri said.

Schembri added that the government had turned a blind eye notwithstanding that they were fully aware of the situation. “The malaise of unfair competition should be seriously tackled if this country seriously wants to aspire for quality and economic growth.”  

GreenPak is the MEPA-authorised scheme operated by Green Dot Malta. The company went court over the name assumed by the GRTU subsidiary when it launched its waste recovery scheme under the name Green.Mt Ltd. in 2007.

Green Dot resorted to judicial action claiming the words “Green Mt” was used by the GRTU subsidiary to cause confusion in the market. Green Dot Malta had further requested the court to declare that certain press releases and circulars issued by the GRTU subsidiary company were tantamount to misleading advertising and unfair competition aimed at spreading false news to the prejudice of Green Dot Malta Ltd.

In delivering judgment, Mr Justice Pace stated that the two schemes were obviously direct competitors operating in the same field of activity and the name Green.Mt Ltd was creating confusion.

The court said that the law laid down that businessmen could not use any name, mark or symbol which could create confusion with another name, mark or symbol used legally by others. The whole case verged on whether the name Green.Mt Ltd could be confused with the name Green Dot Malta Ltd. The imitation did not need to be perfect. It was enough that in its entirety it could deceive a consumer.

Mr Justice Pace said that examining the words used in the names left him with no doubt that the names could and were creating confusion among persons needing some service related to recycling, and a person could end up thinking he was dealing with a company when he was in fact dealing with another. The confusion would be due to the fact that the names were so similar. The names, put near each other or pronounced, sounded the same.