This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2025 WIPO IP Judges Forum.
Session 4: Evidence
Specialized Commercial Court of Algiers, Algeria [2025]: Ormatel Single-Member Limited Liability Company v Autovoltaic Plus Limited Liability Company, Court Order of August 27, 2025
Date of judgment: Court order dated August 27, 2025
Issuing authority: Specialized Commercial Court of Algiers
Level of the issuing authority: First Instance
Type of procedure: Judicial (Commercial)
Subject matter: Trademarks
Plaintiff: Ormatel Single-Member Limited Liability Company
Defendant: Autovoltaic Plus Limited Liability Company
Keywords: Court order, Proof of status, Expert appointment, Evidence, Trademark infringement
Basic facts: The Plaintiff seeks to prove that there is an infringement of her trademark by the Defendant regarding the product registered by the Plaintiff, which is a car alarm device bearing the “SPEED ALARM” trademark.
Held: The expert shall be appointed to carry out the following tasks:
1. Visit the Defendant’s headquarters to inspect and accurately describe the product, the “Central Car Door Lock,” bearing the “TOPSYSTEM UPGRADED SYSTEM” trademark, both externally and internally, and take color photographs of it.
2. Compare this product with the product manufactured by the Plaintiff bearing the “SPEED ALARM” trademark, after thoroughly describing the latter externally and internally and taking color photographs of it.
3. Highlight the similarities between the two products, both internally and externally.
The expert shall complete his report and deposit it with the court registry within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. He shall refer to the court in the event of any dispute.
The Plaintiff shall deposit an advance payment of fifty thousand Algerian dinars (50,000.00 DZD) with the court registry for the expert’s fees within fifteen days from the date of issuance of this order.
Notice to the Plaintiff that this description shall be deemed null and void by operation of law if it does not pursue the civil or criminal procedure within one month from the date the expert report is filed with the court registry, pursuant to the provisions of Article 35 of Ordinance No. 03-06.
Any additional requests shall be denied.
Relevant holdings in relation to evidence: Appointing an expert to inspect the products alleged to infringe the trademark.
Relevant legislation: Code of Civil and Administrative Procedure; Ordinance No. 03-06 on Trademarks