News & Analysis
- Data & Tools
- Login | Register
In a case involving the issue of a third party’s right to intervene, the commissioner has granted the petitioner the right to intervene in a cancellation action. Under an agreement between the proprietor of the mark and the petitioner, the proprietor had been liquidated, and ownership of the mark had reverted to the petitioner. The commissioner could not rule out the possibility that the rights in the mark were a form of asset belonging to the proprietor prior to liquidation.
10 December 2012
In <i>Invicta Watch Company of America Inc v Sector Group SpA</i>, the adjudicator has considered what happens when an applicant for registration encounters a blocking registration for a mark that has not been used for several years, but still faces procedural hurdles that arguably prevent it from challenging the registered mark or otherwise removing it as a blocking citation.
29 November 2012
In a case involving a trademark application by The Coca-Cola Company, the adjudicator has considered the proper test for determining the registrability of a 3D mark under Israeli law. In particular, she addressed the issue posed by the application at issue - namely, the registrability of a 2D depiction of a 3D bottle.
07 November 2012
In <i>Lametayel Travel Center Ltd v KKSH Ltd</i>, the Tel Aviv District Court has held that use of the mark ODAFIM LAMETAYEL ('outlet for the traveller') for an online store infringed the well-known registered mark LAMETAYEL ('for the traveller'). Among other things, the court held that use of the plaintiff's mark as a Google AdWord was infringing as internet users would not be able to distinguish between the parties.
02 November 2012
In <i>Danziger v Mor</i>, the Supreme Court has reversed a decision of the IP adjudicator allowing the registration of MORE STARS in Class 31, despite the existence of the earlier registered mark MILLION STARS for identical goods. The adjudicator had held that the three-year restriction in the licence agreement between the parties could be interpreted as meaning that the owner of MORE STARS was entitled to use his mark after the expiry of the restriction period.
31 October 2012
In <i>MD Fast Food Limited v McDonald’s Corporation</i>, the commissioner has considered one of the trickiest issues in Israel trademark practice - whether an action can be taken by one of the parties after the time prescribed in the statute has expired. Following an opposition by McDonalds against an application for the mark MAC DAVID, the applicant had failed to file its counter-statement within the two-month period prescribed by the Trademarks Ordinance.
23 October 2012
In <i>adidas Salomon AG v Yassin</i>, the Supreme Court has upheld a decision of the Tel Aviv District Court finding that the defendant, an importer of sports shoes, had not infringed adidas' well-known three-stripe mark. The Supreme Court found that the defendant's shoes, which prominently bore the name Sydney and were intended for sale at open-air markets, did not create a likelihood of confusion or association with adidas' three-stripe mark.
08 October 2012
In <i>DA Health Center Ltd v Aminach Bedding & Furniture Manufacturers Ltd</i>, the commissioner has granted the opponent the right to continue to maintain the opposition, even though the latter had filed its evidence after the expiry of the two-month period. The case shows that, when the result of a late filing is loss of rights of an opponent to continue to pursue the opposition, the commissioner is reticent to order such a result.
21 September 2012
In <i>Tommy Hilfiger Licensing LLC v Swisa</i>, the Tel Aviv District Court has found that parallel importers of Tommy Hilfiger products were liable for trademark infringement and other torts, as their overly broad and prominent use of the TOMMY marks did not fall within the statutory defence of truthful description of genuine goods.
18 September 2012
The Commissioner of Trademarks has refused to register the phrase ‘The Day After Pill’, in both Hebrew and English, for a "pharmaceutical composition for gynaecological use". Among other things, the commissioner noted that the applicant always used the mark together with the mark POSTINOR, usually in the form 'Postinor - The Day After Pill'. According to the commissioner, it is this form that the public recognises, and not 'the day after pill' alone.
14 September 2012
Unlock unlimited access to all WTR content