New Israeli Supreme Court Decision on Trademark Infringement by Parallel import

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Is the act of parallel import beverages from Ukraine to Israel, without the consent of the Israeli trademark owner (who differs from the rights holder in Ukraine), considered trademark infringement? The Israeli Supreme Court, through a distinctive judgment by Judge Stein, tackled this query.

In simpler terms: In situations of split ownership, where different owners possess the same mark in different countries, does bringing identical products from Country A to Israel under the same mark, without the approval of the Israeli trademark holder, amount to trademark infringement?

The Facts:

Yafora Ltd produces and markets soft drinks in Israel. Yafora Ltd owns the “Schweppes” trademark in Israel and in the territory of the Palestinian Authority.

In 2006, Yafora acquired the trademark “Schweppes” in Israel from Cadbury Schweppes PLC. “Schweppes” beverages, marketed by Yafora Ltd in Israel, are manufactured by Yafora in Israel.

Ben Shlush Ltd imports various products from abroad into Israel in a parallel import process. Products imported by a Ben Shlush include food and beverages.

The parlell import scheme can be presented as follows: 

On March 12, 2019, Ben Shlush Ltd imported the first shipment of beverage bottles with the “Schweppes” trademark, which they allegedly purchased from Supreme Trading LLC.

This company purchased the beverages from official resellers, who purchased them from the beverage manufacturer in Ukraine, European Refreshments Limited. Coca-Cola owns the rights to the “Schweppes” trademark in Ukraine through its subsidiary ERL.

Ben Shlush received a cease-and-desist letter from Yafora on April 29, 2019, stating that the marketing of Ukrainian beverages under the “Schweppes” trademark infringes on Yafora’s Israeli trademark registration “Schweppes”.

In light of the above, Ben Shlush filed a motion for a declaratory judgment asking the District Court to declare that Schweppes’ beverages imported from Ukraine, which were purchased from ERL, were lawful and did not infringe on Yafora’s Israeli trademark “Schweppes”.

The District Court Decision: 

On October 19, 2020 the District Court has accepted the motion for a declaratory judgment and ruled that the fact that Yipora manufactures its products in Israel and does not import them to Israel from abroad does not deprive Ben Shlush of the status of a legitimate parallel importer.

In this context, it was pointed out that a certain difference between the products, those of the owner of the trademark rights and those imported in parallel import from another country, does not detract from their originality for the purpose of protecting the parallel import, whenever the product manufacturer holds the trademark rights in that country.

Along with this legal determination in principle, it was determined that Yafora in any case did not prove to the required extent its factual claim regarding the difference between the products.

Split Ownership of the Same Brand

The district court ruled that the legal doctrine concerning the exhaustion of intellectual property rights also applies in situations of territorial split ownership of trademark rights.

In this context, the district court has argued that the parallel import was a commercial risk that Yafora had to consider while acquiring the rights to the “Schweppes” trademark from Cadbury – in view of its awareness of the territorial, voluntary and agreed split of the Schweppes trademark rights.

The District Court ruled that this split of ownership was made when Cadbury sold its rights to various entities in different countries.

Accordingly, the District Court has awarded Ben Shlush with a declaratory judgment in which Ben Shlush is entitled to import the products purchased by ERL under the “Schweppes” trademark and that it is not considered to be a trademark infringement.

Yafora has filed an appeal to the Israeli Supreme Court.     

The Supreme Court Decision:

Judge Stein has decided to accept the appeal together with Judge Elron, against the minority opinion of Judge Hendle.     

Majority Opinion (Judge Stein)

The Court has ruled that the basic mistake that the district court made was to attribute a notion of internationality to the Israeli trademark “Schwepps” and its affiliation with the global “Schweppes” brand, which in fact does not exist. It is a fact that the trademark “Schweppes” is no longer associated with Cadbury, which at the time sold it to Yafora.  

Second, and this is the point: a trademark – “Schweppes” in this case, is limited to the borders of the state in which it is registered and gives its owners exclusive territorial rights, as opposed to extra-territorial rights unrelated to the local mark. Thus, the trademarks of “Schweppes” that have been registered and recognized in countries outside Israel are not relevant at all – this is because their scope is essentially limited to the borders of each country and its laws.

When Cadbury controlled 50 or 100 Schweppes trademarks in 50 or 100 different countries – even then it did not hold any international-global trademark, but fifty (or one hundred) different local trademarks, that were distinct from each other and unrelated to each other.

This basic principle will be hereinafter referred to as the principle of territorial protection for trademarks or, in short, the principle of territorial protection.

The principle of territorial protection and the exclusive right that Yipora has in the marketing and distribution of “Schweppes” products in Israel, lead the court to the following conclusion: Such importation shall violate Yafora’s exclusive trademark rights, will harm the ability of consumers in Israel who wish to buy Yafora’s Schweppes’ products, , and will lead to the erosion of Yafora’s incentive to invest in the quality of “Schweppes” products that are sold in Israel.

The Supreme Court then continued to define what is considered to be a legitimate Parallel Import in Israel:

Parallel import is a legitimate commercial practice whenever it respects and does not infringe on the existing trademark regime. Parallel or other imports that infringe the rights of the trademark owner in his own country are illegitimate and shall not be permitted.

In this case, in the absence of a contractual relationship between Yafora and the rights holder of the “Schweppes” trademark in Ukraine, there is no basis for claiming that the sale of the products by the Ukrainian manufacturer – between them and Yafora products – exhausts Yafora’s rights in Israel.

The Yafora company exercises its trademark rights only when it sells its own beverages under the “Schweppes” brand – and this, of course, only in relation to the beverages it has sold and received in return. These drinks – and only they – can be put up for further sale in Israel without infringing Yafora’s trademark. The Ukrainian brand bearing the “Schweppes” mark is not related to the Israeli brand which is identified with Yafora through the trademark “Schweppes” owns by Yafora. Therefore, the Ben Shlush “Schweppes” drinks imported to Israel are considered as infringing goods.

Minority Opinion

Judge Hendler presented a different opinion.

In his opinion the use of the mark “Schweppes” by Ben Shlush should be considered as “true use” of the mark in accordance with section 47 of the trademark ordinance. Judge Hendler contended that the use of the “Schweppes” mark on the bottles, even though they were produced by the rights holder in Ukraine and not in Israel, provides real and valuable information for the consumer about the brand.

In his opinion, the legally split of ownership did not change the reputation of the “Schweppes” brand in the eyes of the consumers. The Schweppes bottles enjoyed the reputation of “Schweppes” prior to the transfer of ownership, and the reputation of “Schweppes” continues to accompany them. This is therefore a true use of the “Schweppes” mark.

Judge Hendler continued and explain his opinion that marketing the imported bottles as ” Schweppes ” should considered as true use of that mark. The reason for this is not because in Ukraine the use of the mark was lawful, nor because the name of the rights holder in Ukraine (or his predecessor) was indeed “Schweppes”. The reason is that both the rights holder in Ukraine and Yafora both acquired rights in the same mark with an international reputation. In such a case the mark “Schweppes” on the imported bottles contains the correct information about the same brand.

In view of this conclusion, Judge Hendler continued to evaluate whether such import may cause confusion in the market. In his opinion, the consumers probably did not know that there are two ” Schweppes ” manufacturers operating in Israel that are not currently legally related to each other.

There is also no guarantee, in these circumstances, that the taste or composition of the imported beverages is the same as some of the beverages produced by Yafora, or that such an identity will be preserved in the future.

Although the back of the bottles contains data about the manufacturer, it is highly doubtful whether this caption allows the consumer to know effectively about the existence of two different and independent manufacturers who legally use the “Schweppes” mark.

In these circumstances, and since Yafora produces its beverages independently, it was decided by Judge Hendler that the marketing of the bottles as they are, eventually  does not meet the criteria of “true use”, in view of the likelihood of market confusion test.

Nevertheless, Judge Hendler believes that this difficulty can be overcome by affixing a “Disclaimer” sticker to the front of the imported bottles, in a prominent place and adjacent to the “Schweppes” trademark.

The sticker must make it clear enough that the drink is produced by the rights holder in Ukraine, and that the taste of the drink may be different from that produced in Israel by the trademark holder in Israel. Judge Hendler believed that such a disclaimer should overcome the confusion test.

Judge Stein objected to Judge Hendler’s view. In his opinion the Court should not provide legal guidance to the defendant. Judge Stein sees no reason to give Ben Shlush legal advice regarding its future operations in the Israeli soft drink market. In his opinion, giving such advice is not part of the judicial role.                

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court has decided to accept the appeal in accordance with the majority opinion of Judge Stein and Judge Elron who agreed with Judge Stein.

The Supreme Court decided to set aside the district court’s ruling and award a declaratory judgment which states that Ben Shlush is not allowed to import products made in Ukraine bearing the trademark “Schweppes” without the permission of Yafora.

The Supreme Court has also ordered Ben Shlush to pay Yafora legal expenses in both instances in the total amount of NIS 70,000.

This new decision materially limits the scope of legitimate parallel imports in Israel and define the legal ruling for a situation of a split ownership of same brand by unaffiliated companies in different countries.     

Our estimation is that an additional hearing will be requested by Ben Shlush since this decision could potentially have a major influence on the parallel import market in Israel.

Disclaimer: Nothing in the above constitutes any legal opinion whatsoever and the user is required to get a professional legal consultation.       

Israel : What is the Level of Similarity Needed to Win a Trademark Opposition?

/in , , /by

In Israel, third parties can oppose the registration of a trademark within three months of publication by filing a trademark opposition against the requested mark. The mark will proceed to registration if no opposition is filed.

The opposer must prove that there is a likelihood of confusion between the requested mark and the opposer’s mark in order to win a trademark opposition.

To pass that bar, what level of similarity is required?

Based on reviewing several trademark opposition decisions rendered in Israel for the past two years, we have noticed that to win a trademark opposition in Israel, the opposer must show a substantial likelihood of confusion.

Even a strong similarity may not suffice. Compared to trademark systems in other countries, the standard of similarity is quite high. 

Furthermore, the Legal Expenses usually ruled by the Trademark Registrar are minimal and don’t cover the actual legal expenses the opposer has to pay during the opposition process.


The Legal Expenses usually ruled by the Trademark Registrar are minimal and don’t cover the actual legal expenses

Therefore, before filing an opposition to a trademark in Israel, it is recommended to assess the chances of success.

The table below shows the surprising results of several trademark opposition proceedings over the past two years.

Would the following oppositions be acceptable in your country? Let us know what you think.  Contact Us. 

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

Any use of this website and\or content is subject to clear and specific consent for the Terms of Use. Nothing in this website shall be deemed as any kind of legal advice or opinion.

Is There a Likelihood of Confusion Between EZ and EZ PUT?

/in , , , /by

We are thrilled to share with you the fantastic victory our firm achieved in a recent trademark opposition case. The case centered on the use of a rapper’s merchandise in connection with his trademark, and whether it constituted use beyond his music services.

Our client, EZ PUT, a company specializing in mobile phone accessories, had their trademark application opposed by Israeli rapper, EZ, who claimed that the mark was too similar to his own, well-known mark in the music services category. EZ argued that his sales of shirts and hats with his trademark should broaden the protection of his mark.

However, EZ PUT countered that there was no likelihood of confusion between the two marks, citing differences in design, style, and meaning. They also contested that EZ’s trademark was not widely known and that the sale of fashion merchandise did not constitute valid trademark use outside of music services.

The TM Registrar ultimately dismissed the opposition, fully accepting EZ PUT’s arguments, including their use of the merchandise claim. As the Registrar noted, the purchase of a shirt with a band’s name is not meant to convey the quality or origin of the shirt, but to express the wearer’s musical preferences and cultural identity.

Our client was expertly represented by Yossi Sivan – Law Firm, and we are honored to have been a part of this successful outcome.

 

Can a Fin Shape Jewelry be Eligible for a 3D Trademark in Israel?

/in , /by

Ronit Kopel filed a trademark application for a three-dimensional mark for a fin shape in class 14 for “jewelry and key holders” that looks like this:

The Trademark Office has issued a refusal based on the claim that the mark merely describes the goods as a three-dimensional product and therefore lacks a distinctive character, meaning that the mark is the product itself.

In Israel, it may be possible to register the shape of a good as a trademark in special cases, where sufficient evidence is provided to demonstrate three cumulative conditions ruled by the Supreme Court in the case of August Storck KG B v Alfa Intuit Food Productions Ltd (CA-11487- 03, March 23 2008) (The Toffefe Case), as follows: 

1. The image requested to be registered, in practice, functions as a trademark, namely it indicates the source of the goods intended to be sold under the mark. 

2. The image requested to be registered, does not serve solely an aesthetic or functional purpose.

3. As a result of use, the mark has acquired a distinctive character that indicates the source of the good. 

The above requirements were described later as the “Three Requirements Test” and was also adopted by the Israeli Trademark Registrar as the official requirements for the examination of three-dimensional marks.

The applicant responded that her mark meets the Three Requirements Test, that it is well known in Israel and that it has acquired distinctive character due to intensive use in the market.

The Trademark examiner rejected the applicant’s claims, so the applicant requested an oral hearing, trying to persuade the IP Commissioner that the Examiner’s decision was wrong.

The IP Commissioner relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in The Toffefe Case, and analyzed the case as follows:

  1. Function as a Trademark

The IP Commissioner ruled that the fin shape functions as a trademark only for the bags and packages, sold under the mark, but not for the jewelry product itself, as can be seen from the following photos:

The IP Commissioner decided that the mere sale of fin shaped jewelry does not prove that the requested mark functions as a trademark, since it doesn’t serve as an indicator of origin that differentiate from other goods been sold in the market. The following are photos of  some of the applicant’s products: 

  1. Aesthetic or Functional Purpose

The IP Commissioner ruled that the shape of a fin as a jewelry or work of art is based purely on aesthetic reasons, since the consumer buys them for their aesthetic value of a fin, that attracts the eyes, and not for any other reason. Therefore, the aesthetic character of the fin shape is so material, it prevents any trademark protection.

  1. Acquired Distinctiveness – Secondary meaning  

Following the rejection of two of the three requirements test, IP Commissioner decided that there is no need to analyze if the mark has acquired distinctive character through intensive use in the market. The IP Commissioner’s opinion was that even if such acquired distinctiveness was established, the fact that the shape is based on a pure aesthetic character prevents any trademark protection.

The Applicant then claimed that the reason for applying for a three-dimensional application is to prevent competitors from selling confusingly similar fin shaped jewelry.

The IP Commissioner rejected this claim and decided that this reason does not justify a trademark protection and in fact was a reason NOT to approve the application.

The IP Commissioner ruled that the applicant should have filed for a registered design  for a limited protection under the law and that the registration of the three-dimensional trademark as the product image and as a defensive step in order to prevent others from using the fin image or similar figures does not meet the basic purposes of trademark law.

The application was denied. 

Disclaimer:
Nothing in the above shall be considered as any legal advice or any legal opinion whatsoever. This is just an informative article. We strongly recommend consulting with a professional attorney in such matters.

Contact Us to Know More About this Case

Israel: A Trademark Owner Sued His Licensee …But Eventually Lost His Trademark

/in , , /by

Managing a licensing business can be sometime challenging for a trademark owner.

In a licensing agreement, a trademark owner (the licensor) receives royalty payments in exchange for allowing another party (the licensee) to use his mark.

One of the risks of trademark licensing is losing control of the brand. Sometimes a licensor may find himself giving up control on material elements of his brand, such as packaging, costs, distribution in discount markets and more.

There could be also other risks such as fraud reports and losing the ability to police the licensee’s activities.

A recent case in Israel (Management Europe Meeting International v. Forum Publishing) shows that there might be another serious risk, which is losing a trademark registration as a consequence of a legal conflict with the licensee.

Here are some basic facts of the case:

Management Europe Meeting International (MEM) is the owner of the Israeli trademark PRODUCT OF THE YEAR. Forum Publishing (Forum) has signed a license agreement with MEMI (a sublicensee of MEM) for the use of the mark in Israel.

In accordance with the license agreement Forum is obligated to pay royalties to MEMI for the use of the mark PRODUCT OF THE YEAR, that allows certain manufacturers to label the mark on their product packaging for marketing purposes.

After several years a conflict erupted between MEM and Forum.

Eventually, MEM has sued Forum in the Israeli Court asking for a declaratory judgment that the license is no longer valid due to lack of trust and bad faith behavior of Forum’s manager. Alternatively, MEM has claimed that the license agreement is no longer valid since the license period has ended and not renewed.

It should be noted that those claims have been denied by the Israeli Court who decided that there were no grounds to cancel the license agreement and that there is no evidence for such a lack of trust.

The trademark owner has also raised an unusual claim in order to attack his licensee. MEM claimed that the license has never been recorded at the Trademark Office, therefore the license was not valid, and the result is that Forum has no license to use the mark.

Can a trademark owner cancel an existing trademark license by claiming that the License wasn’t recorded in the Trademark Office? 

Let’s understand the context. Why does a trademark owner need to record a license at the Trademark Office?


Let’s understand the context. Why does a trademark owner need to record a license at the Trademark Office?

According to the Israeli law (Section 41 of the Trademark Ordinance) any trademark registration that has not been in use by its proprietor for a period of three consecutive years (from date of registration) can be cancelled on the ground of lack of use. Actual commercial use in the market is required in order to meet the use requirements.

According to the Israeli case law, using the mark in Israel only by a local licensee (and not by a trademark owner) will not be considered to be “use” by the proprietor, unless the license was recorded at the Trademark Office.

In the case of A.L. 364/74 Samuel Davidovich v. Miromitt Metal Works 27 Ashkelon Ltd., PD 29 (1) 703 (9.1.75), The Supreme Court has ruled that a trademark license that wasn’t recorded is simply not valid, but the contractual license may be still valid and binding.

It is important to mention that this claim is generally raised by third parties to attack trademark owners in invalidation cases (in a lack of use claims) and not against licensees.

In the case of Management Europe Meeting International v. Forum Publishing, it was the first time that a brand owner itself has raised this claim against his licensee in order to support his claims that the license should be canceled.

Unfortunately, not only that the claim was rejected by the Jerusalem District Court, but the Court has acknowledged the fact that the license indeed wasn’t recorded in the Trademark Office and ruled that the trademark is not valid!

 

“Therefore, and in accordance to the Davidovitch case law, since the trademark in the country (Israel Y.S) is not registered on the name of the Defendant it’s not valid…” 

   


This is clearly a precedent decision since no party has challenged the validity of the registration and still the Judge took the liberty of declaring the registration as not valid.

This is clearly a precedent decision since no party has challenged the validity of the registration and still the Judge took the liberty of declaring the registration as not valid. 

This is for sure a fatal result for the trademark owner, who tried to cancel a license but ends up in cancelling his own registration.

I guess this is the classic case of a brand owner who “cuts off one’s nose to spite one’s face” in the fight against his licensee.

The conclusion is that a trademark owner needs to be very careful in managing disputes against his licensees.


Important: Trademark owners need to make sure to record their license.

Also, trademark owners need to make sure their license is recorded at the trademark Office.   

It will be interesting to know how the invalidity of the registration will affect the contractual relations between the parties. It might surely affect the ability of the licensor to negotiate new licensing deals. 

Disclaimer:
Nothing in the above shall be considered as any legal advice or any legal opinion whatsoever. This is just an informative article. We strongly recommend consulting with a professional attorney in such matters.

Contact Us to Know More About this Case

 

Israel : Does Rebottling Chanel Perfume Constitute Trademark Infringement?

/in , /by

Sent-Wish is a small local business who buys original perfumes such as Chanel, Tom Ford, Chloe, Hermes and Burberry via parallel import from overseas vendors, pours the perfume to small refill bottles and then sells the new refill bottles to consumers using the manufacturer’s name.

The bottles are sold with a package that carries a disclaimer that the products do not have any affiliation with the manufacturer.

Photo for impression only

Chanel has decided to confront Sent-Wish and sent Cease and Desist letters to Sent-Wish demanding to remove all bottles from the market and to refrain from using Chanel’s trademark.

Sent-Wish company responded by filing a Motion for a Declaratory Judgment asking the Court to declare that the rebottling of the original perfume does not infringe Chanel’s trademark.

Chanel claimed that the use of Chanel’s trademark for selling unauthorized refill bottles constitutes trademark infringement and dilution.

In addition, Chanel claimed that the sale of the perfume in unauthorized bottles damages Chanel’s reputation, the value of the brand and the quality of the original perfume.

Chanel also claimed that the rebottling materially changes the original product, therefore considered to be an infringement.

Sent-Wish responded by claiming that their actions do not damage the basic component and nature of the original perfume and that the use of the name Chanel considered to be “True Use” of Chanel’s mark for the purpose of reselling the perfume legally bought in the market, therefore do not constitute an infringement.

Judge Tamar Avrahami agreed that there is a possibility that the rebottling might reasonably change the quality of the perfume but decided that this assumption is not enough since the question of trademark infringement must be decided based only on implementing section 47 of the Trademark Ordinance.

According to section 47, the use of a trademark without the authorization of the trademark owner is not considered to be an infringement if the use of the mark qualifies as “True Use” in the market, which relates to the original essence or quality of the product.

Judge Avrahami than implemented the three tests that were acknowledged by the Supreme Court to determine whether the use of Chanel’s mark considered to be “True Use” in the market:

Identification Test: Whether the product can be identified without using the mark.

The Essentiality of the Use Test: Whether the use of the mark is essential and reasonably required.

The Affiliation Test: The use of the mark doesn’t imply that the use is authorized or approved by the trademark owner.

Following the implementation of the three tests above and based on the fact that the new bottles were labeled with a disclaimer, Judge Avrahami has decided that the rebottling of Chanel’s perfume considered as True Use of the mark regarding the original product, therefore does not constitute trademark infringement.

In light of the Court’s findings regarding the actual use of the mark, Judge Avrahami ruled that Sent-Wish is entitled to resell the perfume by rebottling and to use Chanel’s mark to indicate the fact that the perfume sold in the bottles is the material ingredient and for identification purposes.

My estimation is that an appeal will certainly follow. 

This does not constitute as a any legal opinion, and it is strongly recommended to consult with knowledgeable lawyers in this field.

Want to know more details about this ? Contact us

Israel Joins Hague Convention for Industrial Designs

/in , /by

Industrial Designs in Israel:

The State of Israel has joined The Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs.

The Hague System provides a practical business solution for registering up to 100 designs in 70 contracting parties covering 88 countries, through the filing of one single international application.

Israel has now formally approved the Hague System which will come into effect in Israel on 3 January 2019.

In Israel, an industrial design provides protection to the ornamental or aesthetic visuality of an article. An industrial design protects the shape of two- or three-dimensional features subject to novelty and individual character requirements. The term of protection for a registered design in Israel is 25 years effective from the Israeli filing date.

Like other countries, in Israel, disclosure of an industrial design to the public within 12 months prior to the filing date of the application in Israel, or before its priority date, will not be considered as prior art (Grace Period).

The Hague Agreement Concerning the International Deposit of Industrial Designs enables citizens of all member states to register an industrial design by filing a single application designating any of the member states.

Every application must be examined by the local Patent Office in accordance with the local law and regulations.

As of January 3, 2020, foreign applicants (out of Israel) can file an industrial design application in their local Patent Office and designate Israel saving considerable expenses required in using local attorneys for the filings.

It should be noted that the examination process in Israel is sometimes more complicated and time consuming than in other countries. A typical design application can have more than 2 office actions before getting registered. The Israeli Patent Office has strict policy in technical issues, drawings and novelty requirements.

Therefore, we recommend getting an advice of a local professional attorney before starting the process of registering an Industrial Design using the Hague System.

 

Who Filed the Most Israeli Trademark Applications in 2018?

/in , , /by

The Israeli Patent and Trademark Authority has recently published a report for the year 2018 which exhibits the statistics and activities of the Israeli Patent and Trademark Authority for the year 2018.

The following are the main statistics taken from the 2018 report:

2018 has shown a steady level in both national and international trademark filings in Israel according to the 2018 Patent and Trademark Office published by the Israeli Patent and Trademark Authority (see 2017 Patent and Trademark Office Report)

A total of 10,686 trademark applications were filed in 2018: 5,799 international applications and 4887 national applications.

Apple Inc. has filed the most trademark applications in Israel: 61 international applications and 27 national applications. This is the second year that Apple Inc. is taking the place of the number one trademark applicant in Israel. Israel’s mobile industry is thriving especially in the categories of mobile apps and mobile technology.

Novartis holds the second place with a total of 55 applications: 50 national applications and only 5 international applications.

Sanrio Company holds the third place with 54 national applications and 0 international applications.

Jonson & Jonson holds the fourth place with a total of 45 applications: 44 national applications and only 1 international application.

75.6% of the applicants in 2018 were foreign companies and 24.4% were local.

24.4% of the applicants are from Israel, 20.9% are from the US, 7.2% are from Germany and 7.2% are from China.

Yossi Sivan, Trademark Attorney

Yossi Sivan, Trademark Attorney

Owner & General Partner at Yossi Sivan & Co. Law Offices
Contact Us

 

The 2017 Israeli Patent and Trademark Authority Report

/in , , /by

The Israeli Patent and Trademark Authority has recently published a report for the year 2017 which exhibits the statistics and activities of the Israeli Patent and Trademark Authority for the year 2017. The following are the main statistics taken from the 2017 report.

TRADEMARKS

During the 2017 year, the examination period for trademark applications in Israel has been shortened to a period of 12 months (in relation to the previous year where the examination period was 16 months).

In the year 2017 there was an increase of 14% of trademark applications filed in Israel. 55% of the applications were international applications based on the Madrid Protocol, and 45 % of the applications were national applications.

The number of international applications based on the Madrid Protocol has risen by 19% and the number of national applications has risen by 9%.

The applicant with the greatest number of applications was Apple Inc. with 81 applications. The second is Johnson and Johnson with 71 applications, followed by Phillip Morris with 57 applications and Huawei Technologies with 51 applications. The highest number of applications (21.6%) were filed by U.S. applicants. Applicants from Israel made up 24.2% of applications and China 6.6% of applications.

DESIGNS

The New Design Law, which replaced the Patent and Design Ordinance of 1924 was confirmed by the Israeli Parliament and became valid as of August 7, 2018. The leading foreign applicants for design in Israel were Facebook (54), Scania (29), and Dyson Technologies (26).

PATENTS

In 2017, there were 6,813 patent applications filed in Israel. The foreign applicants with the most patent applications were Facebook (94 applications), Phillip Morris (82 applications), and Raytheon Company (62 applications). In 2017, 89.9% of the applicants of patent applications were foreign citizens/companies and 10.1% of the applicants were local applicants.

A copy of the report can be downloaded from here: https://en.calameo.com/read/00566845929ff1d51897c

 

 

Israeli Supreme Court – Copying a Design is not Enough for a Liability

/in /by

On December 2016 we reported on the fashion designer Gadi Elemelech who sued Renuar a chain of women’s clothing in Israel, for selling dresses that was confusingly similar to his designed dress.

The Court District Court  ruled that the disputed dress constitute passing off and that Elimelech has proved goodwill.

We criticized this decision and indeed the ruling was appealed to the Israel Supreme Court which overturned it, in an agreed decision without costs.

The Supreme Court simply mentioned that copying a design is not enough for a liability and referred to the precedent of 945/06 General-Mills vs Meshubach ruling in which  the Supreme Court stipulated that a mere imitation of a product cannot constitute a passing off unless there is a likelihood of confusion between the products. It is also imperative to establish a reputation in order to sue for a passing off claim.

Comment

It become more and more difficult to protect unregistered designs in Israel, but soon there will be new regulations on protecting unregistered designs. Stay tuned.