The Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency has adopted a decision declaring a complaint filed by JSC “Bashkir Soda Company” inadmissible. The complaint alleged an infringement of Article 11(3) of the Law of Georgia on Competition by LLC “Suntrade”, specifically concerning practices of unfair competition through the unauthorized use of a trademark owned by the complainant.
Following a thorough assessment of the evidence and information submitted at the admissibility stage, the Agency established that the respondent’s use of the relevant design is based on a legitimate and lawful licensing agreement. Accordingly, the criteria to establish an unlawful appropriation of a competitor’s commercial appearance or product design were not met. In particular, the submission did not establish a sufficient legal basis or a reasonable suspicion of an infringement. On this basis, the Agency considers that there are insufficient grounds to initiate an investigation.
The Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency has adopted a decision declaring inadmissible the complaint submitted by LLC “Millennials”.
The complaint alleged an infringement by JSC “Mamati” of Article 11³ of the Law of Georgia on Competition, concerning unfair competition. Specifically, the complainant claimed that the respondent had imitated the packaging of its tea products, as well as the design of its website.
Following an assessment at the admissibility stage, the Agency established that the complaint did not give rise to a reasonable suspicion of a violation of competition law. Consequently, it failed to meet the material admissibility criteria set out under the applicable legal framework.
Accordingly, the GCCA found no grounds to proceed with the initiation of an investigation.
The Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency adopted a decision declaring inadmissible the complaint submitted by LLC “Multilinguist”. The complaint alleged infringements of Articles 6, 7, and 11³ of the Law of Georgia on Competition by the respondent undertakings LLC “Translate Hub”, LLC “TMN Group”, LLC “New Translation” and LLC “Wordspace”. Furthermore, the complainant referred to a potential violation of Article 10 of the Law by the respondent, the State Procurement Agency. During the admissibility assessment, the complainant failed to discharge the applicable burden of proof. Accordingly, the Agency concluded that the complaint does not meet the substantive admissibility threshold. In particular, the submission did not establish a sufficient legal basis or a reasonable suspicion of an infringement. On this basis, the Agency considers that there are insufficient grounds to initiate an investigation.
Pursuant to the decision of the Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency (GCCA), the complaint submitted by LLC “GoTrip” against LLC “TripHub” concerning an alleged violation of Article 113 of the Law of Georgia on Competition has been declared inadmissible.
Following an assessment of the case circumstances, it was determined that legal proceedings involving the same parties and the same subject matter are currently ongoing before the Tbilisi City Court. In accordance with the applicable legal framework, the Agency is not authorized to initiate an investigation where a dispute concerning the same matter between the same parties is already under judicial consideration.
The complaint submitted by LLC “E.P.J.” on 13 February 2025, was considered inadmissible by the Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency (GCCA). The complaint alleged a violation of subparagraphs "a" and "d" Paragraph 2 of Article 11(3), of the Law of Georgia on Competition by the respondent parties.Upon reviewing the admissibility of the complaint, the Agency determined that the complainant failed to meet the necessary standard of reasonable suspicion required to establish a potential violation under the burden of proof. Additionally, the complainant requested the Agency to impose a ban on the importation of “TYQ” brand shields by the respondents, a measure beyond the Agency’s authority and competence. As a result, in the absence of sufficient legal grounds to initiate an investigation, the Agency considered it inappropriate to initiate an investigation.
The complaint submitted by LLC "Argo" on January 24, 2025, was considered inadmissible by the Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency (GCCA). The complaint alleged a violation of subparagraphs "a" and "d" Paragraph 2 of Article 11(3), of the Law of Georgia on Competition by JSC "Georgian Beer Company" and Swinkels Family Brewers N.V. After reviewing the presented information and evidence, the Agency determined that the complaint did not meet the material admissibility criteria required by law. Specifically, the Agency concluded that there was no reasonable basis to suspect a violation of competition law, as the circumstances outlined by the complainant did not point to any breach. As a result, the Agency considered it inappropriate to initiate an investigation.
The complaint submitted by LLC "Euro Pak"was considered inadmissible by the Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency(GCCA). The complaint alleged a violation of Article 11(3) of the Law of Georgia on Competition by LLC "Kervan Ambalaj Matbaacılık Sanai ve Tijaret" (Georgia Representative Office) and LLC "Simetra". During the admissibility assessment, after reviewing and assessing the submitted information and evidence, the agency concluded that the complaint did not meet the material admissibility standard set by law. Specifically, the matter raised in the complaint fell outside the GCCA’s jurisdiction and authority, leaving no legal grounds for launching an investigation and the Agency considered it inappropriate to initiate an investigation.
The Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency has deemed inadmissible a complaint submitted by Mikita Sokali (I/N 345655454) on October 17, 2024. The complaint alleged a violation of Article 11(3) of the Law of Georgia on Competition by LLC “Merkuri” (I/N 405311247). During the admissibility stage, the Agency compared the submitted information and evidence and determined that the complaint did not meet the material admissibility standards established by law. Specifically, the Agency concluded that the circumstances described by the complainant did not raise a reasonable suspicion of a competition law violation. As a result, the Agency decided not to initiate an investigation.
