 |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|
| | | | | | |
1) Chivas Brothers Limited (GB) opposed to registration of the mark CHIVAS
in relation to foods for pets in the name of Arovit Petfood, FR. The opposition
was based on a number of grounds. The opponent alleged that the mark could mislead
the public; the mark was contrary to morality; the mark was similar to the opponent's
well-known mark CHIVAS REGAL registered earlier in relation to wine, alcoholic
beverages, liquors; besides, the mark was similar to the opponent's trade name.
The Board rejected the opposition and the registration remained in force. The
Board motivated its decisions by the following findings and arguments. The mark
in question was a coined mark and could not mislead the public, since it conveyed
no message at all. For the same reason it could not be contrary to morality.
The marks were not confusingly similar since the goods were dissimilar. The
renown of the opponent's earlier mark had not been proved before the court as
established by the law and the Board was not competent to make decisions on
renown of a mark. The opponent's trade name had no registration in Lithuania
and for this reason could not be an obstacle for registration of the trademark.
2)
|
Opposing Mark
|
Opposed Mark
|
|
Quelle |
COELE
|
The foreign holder of the trademarks QUELLE in a specific typeface, "Quelle"
in a standard typeface and the trade name incorporating the word "Quelle"
opposed to registration of the trademark COELE in the name of a foreign applicant.
The opposing trademarks were registered for all goods and services. The opposed
mark was registered for goods in classes 18, 28, 25. The opposition was filed
on the grounds of confusing similarity to earlier trademarks, similarity to
a trade name and bad faith. The bad faith claim was rejected. One of the motives
for rejecting this claim was that the opponent had not submitted any evidence
in proof of use of the mark in the applicant's country before the date of filing
of the opposed mark and for that reason the Board could not conclude that the
holder of the opposed mark had known about the opponent's mark. The opponent
submitted only evidence in proof that the company had its offices in other countries,
including the country of the holder of the opposed mark, however that was found
insufficient to conclude that the opponent's mark was really known in that country
and the applicant sought to take advantage of another person's reputation.
The Board found the words QUELLE and COELLE similar and since the earlier marks
fully covered the goods specified in the opposed mark, the trademarks were found
confusingly similar and the opposition based on trademark similarity was upheld.
With regard to similarity to the opponent's trade name the Board noted that
a foreign company does not need to have a local registration of its trade name
- foreign trade names are protected through use. The evidence in proof of use
of the trade name was rejected by the Board because the word there did not reproduce
either the full trade name or its shortened form (QUELLE AG) - there appeared
only the word QUELLE in combination with other words and graphic elements. In
general it was noted that the opposition on this ground was rejected for the
reason of the opponent's failure to submit sufficient evidence in proof of use
of the trade name.
Anyhow, the opposition was upheld on the grounds of confusing similarity to
earlier marks and the opposed trademark was invalidated.
7)
|
Opposing Trade Name
|
Opposed Mark
|
|
UAB "JODVILA"
|
 |
The holder of the trade name UAB "JODVILA" opposed to registration of the word-figurative trademark JODIS for all goods in class 32. The opponent submitted evidence in proof that its company had been duly incorporated in Lithuania, had obtained a license from the official bodies for production of drinking waters with iodine, Besides, it submitted evidence in proof that it had been producing IODIS water applying a special technological water. The evidence referred to the time before the contested trademark application. Thus, the Board concluded that the opponent had obtained the right for the trade name JODVILA before the application date. The Board also found similarity between the words JODIS and JODVILA. The goods in the opposed mark were found to be related to the opponent's main sphere of activity - "production of mineral water and non-alcoholic beverages". Based on these findings the opposition was upheld and the opposed trademark registration was invalidated.
4) The holder of the word-figurative mark MEDIAPOOL and the trade name incorporating
this word opposed to registration of the word-figurative mark MEDIAPOOL. The
opposition based on similarity of trademarks was upheld. With regard to the
trade name the Board noted that there had not been submitted any evidence in
proof of registration or use of the opponent's trade name in Lithuania before
the contested mark filing date, therefore, the opposition based on similarity
to a trade name was rejected. As a result of the opposition, the opposed trademark
registration was invalidated on the grounds of confusing similarity to a confusingly
similar earlier mark and rejected on the ground of similarity to a trade name.
 |
INTELS-LITHUANIA |
