The action regarding protection against unlawful use of the company name was filed against the plaintiff by another company. Such another company was registered in the commercial register under the same company name before the plaintiff was. The plaintiff changed its company name upon the court decision. Subsequently, it claimed damages due to the registration of the respective company name. The Court of the First Instance rejected the action as it considered the claim as statute-barred. The Appellate Court cancelled the decision as the limitation of time objection was considered incorrectly in its view.
Decision of the Appellate Court was contested by the defendant through filing an appeal which the Supreme Court considered as unreasonable. The Supreme Court referred to the current practice, according to which an objective statute-barred period begins on the date of delivery of the decision which was found to be unlawful and which caused the damage. In some cases, a situation might occur, when the right is subject to a statute-barred period prior to occurrence of damage and sooner that the right to damages arises. Under the civil law, for the right to be statute-barred, it has to exist firstly, i.e. the statute-barred period cannot run if the right doesn’t exist.
The objective statute-barred period, in the course of which the right to damages caused by unlawful decision becomes statute-barred, begins in the event from which the damage arises; such event contains not only the unlawful act or any event stated by the law which resulted in occurrence of the damage, but also occurrence of the damage itself.
(Decision of the Supreme Court from 12 April 2017, file no. 31 Cdo 4835/2014)