Market Court’s excellent ruling for Mysoda in long-standing trademark dispute

On February 12, 2025, the Market Court issued its decision regarding the compensation claims in the trademark dispute initiated by SodaStream against the Finnish company Mysoda Oy in the spring of 2017. Most of SodaStream’s claims were rejected, and SodaStream was also ordered to pay almost all of Mysoda’s legal costs.

The Market Court noted that the Supreme Court had confirmed in its precedent decision KKO:2023:87 that Mysoda had infringed SodaStream’s trademark rights from June 2016 to late spring of 2017. However, based on the evidence presented by Mysoda, the Market Court found that Mysoda had generated revenue from the infringing activity only when it sold carbon dioxide cylinders to retailers, i.e., only until early December 2016. This was not considered inconsistent with the fact that these cylinders were still on sale at retailers months later. Therefore, compensation was to be assessed based on the revenue generated from the sales of Mysoda’s cylinders during the period from September 1 to November 30, 2016, for which the sales volumes and average selling price had been confirmed as undisputed based on the evidence presented by Mysoda.

Emphasizing SodaStream’s burden of proof, the significant number of cylinders purchased by Mysoda itself with MYSODA engravings, and the rapid turnover of cylinders sold to retailers due to short delivery distances, the Market Court concluded that approximately 30% of the cylinders sold by Mysoda during the aforementioned period infringed SodaStream’s trademark rights. Based on this, the Market Court deemed a reasonable compensation to be 8,000 euros, corresponding to a license fee level of approximately 13%. The Market Court did not accept SodaStream’s claim for interest on the compensation from the date of service of the summons in 2017, but found that SodaStream had only presented evidence of the amount of compensation claimed in the spring of 2024, so the claim for interest on the awarded compensation was accepted only from May 4, 2024.

Regarding SodaStream’s claims for damages, the Market Court found that the sales and profit of SodaStream’s carbon dioxide cylinders had decreased to some extent, but other factors besides Mysoda’s trademark infringement had also contributed to the decrease. Considering the number of infringing cylinders, the Market Court concluded that the damage caused to SodaStream did not exceed the amount of reasonable compensation awarded by the Market Court. The Market Court also found that SodaStream had not shown that the distinctiveness, reputation or goodwill value of its trademarks had been diminished as a result of the trademark infringement, nor had it shown any compensable damage under the Trademark Act for the costs of inspecting and relabeling the cylinders. Therefore, the Market Court rejected SodaStream’s claim for damages in its entirety.

In its decision on legal costs, the Market Court emphasized that SodaStream’s claim for damages had been rejected in its entirety and the compensation claim had been only partially successful, and that the compensation claim had been significantly excessive throughout the proceedings. Therefore, the Market Court ordered SodaStream to pay most of Mysoda’s legal costs, amounting to 75,000 euros.

For more information on the trademark infringement itself, see our previous articles on the earlier stages of the process: Market Court’s interim decision MAO:388/19, ECJ’s preliminary ruling C-197/21, and Supreme Court’s precedent decision KKO:2023:87.