ROMANIAN TRADEMARKS · DISTRIBUTOR EXIT · BRAND ENFORCEMENT

A foreign supplier may terminate its Romanian distribution agreement and still find the former distributor’s website calling itself the “official” Romanian partner.

Its logo may remain on a shopfront, product pages or paid advertisements; a local domain may still lead customers to the former distributor.

The first decision is not simply whether the brand appears somewhere online.

It is what the former distributor is doing with the sign, under what permission, in relation to which products, and what a Romanian customer would understand from the presentation.

This guide addresses that post-termination review for a supplier or trademark owner; the negotiation of brand clauses before appointment is covered in our Romanian distribution agreement guide.

Start with the exit documents

Collect the signed distribution agreement, amendments, trademark licence or brand guidelines, termination notice, proof of delivery, correspondence about the effective date, and any agreed sell-off arrangement.

Read the provisions on use of names and logos, approved marketing, domains, social media, customer-facing descriptions, return or sale of remaining stock, and removal of signage.

A distribution agreement may grant a limited permission to promote the supplier’s products without transferring ownership of the trademark.

That permission may end with the appointment, continue briefly for a specified stock clearance, or be governed by a separate licence.

Do not assume that every obligation ends on the same day: a notice period, disputed termination, survival clause or written transition arrangement may change the analysis.

Where the validity or timing of the contractual exit is disputed, our guide to ending a supplier contract early in Romania explains the separate notice and close-out review.

Check which legal entity owns the trademark and which entity signed the distribution agreement.

If they differ, identify who granted the permission and who can enforce each contractual or trademark right.

Record the use before it disappears

For online material, retain the full page, URL, capture date, seller identity and relevant checkout or contact path; a cropped logo alone may lose the context that matters.

Keep copies of paid advertisements and marketplace profiles, where the visible wording and the advertiser’s identity may differ from a normal product listing.

For a valuable or contested claim, consider a bailiff’s report recording a transient state of affairs under Article 364 of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure, where its conditions are met, or a court application to secure evidence under Articles 359 et seq.

The method must fit the evidence: a dated capture of a public page, a physical shop sign and information held by a platform raise different practical questions.

Avoid accessing accounts or customer databases without authority while gathering evidence.

Separate the different kinds of brand use

Article 39 of Romanian Trademark Law no. 84/1998, as republished, on the Legislative Portal confers exclusive rights and allows the proprietor to seek a court order prohibiting specified unauthorised use in trade, including use on goods, commercial documents and advertising.

For an EU trademark, Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on EUR-Lex provides the corresponding EU framework.

Registration of a trademark does not automatically prove infringement; the protected sign, goods or services, alleged use and any available defence still need examination.

A past commercial relationship does not itself prove a present licence, but a logo on a page does not by itself establish that every use is unlawful.

The sign, goods, territory, actual presentation and scope of consent need to be compared.

Can the former distributor sell its remaining stock?

Often the important distinction is between selling genuine products and representing oneself as a current authorised distributor.

Under Article 44 of the Romanian Trademark Law, the owner’s rights are generally exhausted for goods placed on the market in the EU or EEA under the mark by the owner or with its consent.

Article 15 of the EU Trademark Regulation contains the EEA exhaustion rule for EU trademarks.

Both regimes preserve the owner’s ability to oppose further commercialisation where legitimate reasons exist, particularly if the goods’ condition has been changed or impaired.

Goods first placed on the market outside the EEA are not covered by EEA exhaustion merely because they are genuine.

Check where the first EEA marketing occurred and whether it was by the owner or with consent attributable to the owner; a distributor’s purchase invoice alone may not prove that consent.

Separately, the distribution contract may regulate returns, a sell-off period or payments between the parties.

A contractual disagreement about those terms should not be presented automatically as trademark counterfeiting.

Nor does exhaustion necessarily authorise advertising that falsely suggests an ongoing official relationship.

What about identifying genuine products?

Article 45 of the Romanian law lists uses that the trademark owner cannot prohibit, including a necessary reference identifying the owner’s goods or services and certain descriptive indications, provided the use accords with honest industrial or commercial practices.

Article 14 of the EU Trademark Regulation sets out corresponding limits for EU trademarks.

A former distributor might therefore need to name a genuine product in a listing, while having no right to maintain an “exclusive Romanian representative” claim after that role ends.

Where a separate licence governs brand use, review its scope and end date; our guide to intellectual-property licensing agreements in Romania covers the broader licensing framework.

The assessment is contextual: prominence of the logo, domain name, layout, statements of affiliation and the customer’s likely impression all matter.

When an “official distributor” claim is misleading

A former distributor may keep selling genuine goods while telling customers that it is still the brand’s authorised Romanian representative.

Those are different questions: the first concerns the products and the conditions of resale; the second concerns the truth of a current commercial claim.

Even without a prominent logo, wording such as “official distributor”, “exclusive representative” or “authorised partner” can suggest an appointment that has ended.

Compare the exact claim with the effective termination date, any agreed transition wording, the full advertisement and the likely audience.

Under Romanian Unfair Competition Law no. 11/1991, a commercial practice contrary to honest usages and good faith that causes or may cause harm to market participants may warrant a separate assessment.

Law no. 158/2008 on misleading and comparative advertising may also matter when a trader’s advertisement misstates its status or commercial relationship.

If the message is directed at consumers, Law no. 363/2007 on unfair business-to-consumer practices can require an additional, distinct analysis of whether the presentation could affect a consumer’s transactional decision.

These regimes have different elements and routes; an inaccurate statement does not automatically establish every cause of action.

Trademark, contract and unfair-competition arguments may arise from the same campaign, but each should be tied to its own facts and remedy.

For example, the contract might require removal of marketing materials and correction of account descriptions even if a trademark infringement claim is uncertain.

Conversely, a former distributor’s truthful identification of genuine stock is not made unlawful simply because the supplier prefers another sales channel.

The Court of Justice’s decisions in Dior v Evora (C-337/95) and BMW v Deenik (C-63/97) help explain why advertising genuine goods may be permissible while a false impression of a commercial connection remains problematic.

These cases do not decide the Romanian dispute by themselves; the particular mark, wording, stock provenance and post-exit agreement still control the assessment.

Choose a response that matches the evidence

1. Define the requested changes. Identify the exact pages, ads, signs, accounts or claims to remove or correct; separate them from any legitimate identification of genuine stock.
2. Send a focused notice. Refer to the applicable contract terms and legal rights, attach representative examples, request that relevant records and evidence be preserved, and specify a reasonable response route. A private request alone does not impose a general duty to retain every record.
3. Address platform and account control. Where justified, use the marketplace, advertising platform, domain or social account process with accurate proof of ownership and the relevant pages.
4. Assess court measures. If use continues or evidence may be lost, counsel can evaluate interim relief, evidence preservation and the appropriate contractual, trademark or unfair-competition claim. Damages require the applicable legal conditions and proof; they are not automatic.

Emergency Ordinance no. 100/2005 on the Romanian Legislative Portal, which implements Directive 2004/48/EC on intellectual-property enforcement, provides measures concerning evidence, information, provisional relief and damages, subject to their legal conditions and the court’s assessment.

For EU trademark litigation falling within the jurisdiction assigned to EU trademark courts, Article 91 of the republished Romanian Trademark Law designates the Bucharest Tribunal as the court of first instance; jurisdiction in a particular case still requires review.

A demand should avoid claiming ownership of a domain or social account merely because it contains the brand; registration history and contractual allocation still matter.

It should also avoid demanding that all genuine stock be destroyed without first examining provenance, exhaustion and the contractual stock terms.

If a mark was registered in an agent’s or representative’s own name without the owner’s consent, Article 42 of the republished Romanian Trademark Law contains a special rule, subject to its statutory conditions and any justification for the registration.

For EU trademarks, the EU Trademark Regulation also contains specific rules addressing registrations made by agents or representatives without the proprietor’s consent; the relationship and registration need separate analysis.

What if the former distributor controls a .ro domain?

Check who registered the name, the contractual rules on domains and accounts, and how the site is presented to customers.

For a .ro name, RoTLD’s domain-dispute policy provides an alternative dispute route through approved providers, including WIPO and FORUM, alongside judicial proceedings.

The policy requires more than showing a similar trademark: the complainant must establish the relevant prior right and address the registrant’s legitimate interest and abusive or speculative registration or use under the applicable rules.

Other domain extensions may follow different procedures, so identify the extension before choosing a route.

What should a lawyer review?

A focused review can produce an evidence map, identify the owner and scope of the relevant rights, classify each disputed use, and draft a notice tailored to the contract and the marketing actually visible in Romania.

It should also identify any urgent evidence issue, stock or customer transition dispute, and the practical route for a domain, platform listing or court application.

Brand-use review after a Romanian distribution agreement ends

Atrium Romanian Lawyers can review the exit documents, trademark rights and current marketing, then prepare a targeted response to the former distributor.

Send the agreement, termination notice, trademark details and links or screenshots of the current use.