SPIROTEK CASE SUMMARY
|Subject Heading:||I.D.1. Similarity of Marks|
|Case Name and Citation:||
TEKNOVET ILAÇ SANAYI VE TICARET LIMITED ŞIRKETI vs TURKISH PATENT INSTITUTE & CEVA SANTE ANIMALE Case No. 2009/243; Decision No.2011/6 (3rd Ankara Court of Intellectual and Industrial Rights)
TEKNOVET ILAÇ SANAYI VE TICARET LIMITED ŞIRKETI
1- CEVA SANTE ANIMALE (CEVA)
|Marks Associated with Goods/Services:||
Plaintiff's trademark application no.2007/67132 “SPIROTEK” covering goods in class 5 and defendant’s trademark registrations no.2006 03329 “SPIROVET” registered in class 05.
|Nature of Case:||
Court action instituted for the withdrawal of the TPI’s decision of refusal of the trademark application no.2007/67132 upon acceptance of defendant’s (CEVA SANTE) opposition.
CEVA SANTE’s opposition filed against plaintiff’s application was rejected by the Institute. However upon CEVA SANTE’s objection against the refusal of its opposition before the Higher Council, the trademark application SPIROTEK was partially rejected for “Medication for human and animal health; chemical products and elements for medical purposes…” Therefore the applicant has filed subject court action asking the withdrawal of the TPI’s administrative decision as the final legal step.
|Overview of Decision and Ruling:||
The plaintiff claimed that:
The defendant TPI underlining that the only difference between subject trademarks are “T-K” letters replaced with “V-T” and the dominant part of the subject trademarks is the common SPIRO denomination requested from the Court to reject the action
The defendant CEVA SANTE asserted that:
In the expert’s report issued during the action, it has been stated that CEVA SANTE’s trademark including of SPYRAMISIN is especially used as a veterinary drug, and both trademarks which will be used in respect of the goods including the same active substance will be absolutely used for prescriptive drugs.
In the light of the technical expert report and the evidences submitted, the Court has determined that:
The court has ruled to the partial acceptance of the court action by withdrawing TPI’s decision concerning the partial rejection of the plaintiff’s trademark.
|Importance of Case:||
Although there is a little difference between the trademarks composed of 6 common letters in the same line up, the Court taking into consideration that the common part of the trademarks refers to the INN name SPYRAMISIN and that trademark’s target consumer are experts and professionals having sound knowledge, has decided that this little difference will be sufficient to avoid the risk of confusion between the trademarks.
|Contributing Firm:||Deris Attorneys At Law Partnership|