MERCEDES CASE SUMMARY
|Subject Heading:||I.D.1. Similarity of Marks|
|Case Name and Citation:||
SANYS GROUP CD.LTD. vs TURKISH PATENT INSTITUTE and DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG Case No. 2011/355; Decision No.2012/69 (4TH Ankara Court of Intellectual and Industrial Rights, February 14, 2012)
SANYS GROUP CD.LTD.
1-TURKISH PATENT INSTITUTE
|Marks Associated with Goods/Services:||
The plaintiff’s “” trademark application no.2006/27393 covering goods in class 12.
|Nature of Case:||
Court action instituted for cancellation of the refusal decision of the Turkish Patent Institute regarding the trademark application upon acceptance of defendant’s (Daimlerchrysler AG) opposition due the similarity with the plaintiff’s trademarks nos. 99/016976, 133179, 101798, 177954, 126507 and 2004/05891
Turkish Patent Institute has refused the plaintiff’s trademark application ” in respect of goods in class 12.
|Overview of Decision and Ruling:||
The plaintiff has asserted that:
and therefore requested cancellation of the TPI’s decision about the trademark applied for.
The TPI as the Defendant; has stated that the subject court action is not justified and therefore has requested that it should be rejected.
The other defendant DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG asserted that:
and requested that the subject court action should be rejected in that the TPI’s decision issued regarding the trademark application in question as the subject of the court action is justified.
In the reasoned decision issued by the court;
In considerations of the explanations and evidences submitted in the file and the expert reports, the court has decided that the case shall be rejected and the refusal decision of TPI as the subject of the case shall be upheld in that the trademark applied for shall be rejected.
|Importance of Case:||
Although the device components of the trademarks as the subject of the case are not identical, the Court has retained that the similarity of the trademarks in respect of similar goods under the same class would lead to risk of confusion and association between the trademarks on the basis of the reputation enjoyed worldwide by the defendant’s device trademarks.
|Contributing Firm:||Deris Attorneys At Law Partnership|