Trademarks and Designs
Trademarks and Designs Insights: 102
- Red Bull opposed registration of figurative mark IBEX based on figurative mark RED BULL
- Board found that there was likelihood of association/confusion
- Opposition was upheld for goods in Class 30 and Class 32
- Owner of STICK and STIX marks opposed registration of figurative mark and design containing ‘sticks’
- IP Courts found no likelihood of confusion and that ‘stick’ is descriptive
- Court of Appeal disagreed in somewhat unusual decision
that the words ‘stick’ and ‘stix’ were the main and most prominent elements of the plaintiff’s earlier trademarks and that they were distinctive. »
- Turkish Court of Appeal recently upheld two IP court decisions regarding bad faith
- Cases concerned the SKINCODE 2 SWITZERLAND and BIELENDA trademarks
- The cases reiterate the principle that there is no protection in law if a person has acted in bad faith
With its recent decision dated March 9 2017 and numbered 2016/14857 E, 2017/1442 K, the Turkish Court of Appeals (CoA), by reversing its previous decision in the same dispute, held that the trade marks Uludağ Zero and Panda Zero cannot be considered confusingly similar on the basis of the commonness of the term “zero” since this term is descriptive for beverages.
World Intellectual Property Rights and Remedies features analysis and commentary by leading practitioners on key intellectual property legislation from jurisdictions throughout Europe, Latin America, and Asia, as well as English translations of key intellectual property legislation from non-English-speaking jurisdictions.
The Turkish Patent and Trademark Office recently published the Regulation on the Code of Conduct and Discipline of Patent Attorneys and Trademark Attorneys, with the aim of regulating:
- the rules and procedures applicable to the conduct of patent and trademark attorneys; l the Disciplinary Board of Patent and Trademark Attorneys;
- the methods to be used to detect acts requiring a disciplinary penalty; and
- other disciplinary issues.
The Industrial Property Code No 6769 (the ‘IP Code’), which was prepared by the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (the ‘Office’), and abolished previous intellectual property (IP)-related decree laws was accepted by Parliament on 22 December 2016 and entered into force on 10 January 2017 following its publication in the Official Gazette.
Intellectual Property Services | Trademarks and Designs || Güldeni̇z Doğan Alkan
The Court of Appeal recently issued a decision stating that although a trademark application for retail services of certain goods in Class 35 was similar to a senior trademark – the scope of which was indicated with general phrases such as “retail services of all/various goods” in Class 35 – the application could not be rejected on the grounds of confusing similarity unless the owner of the senior trademark proved that it was genuinely used (or at the very least, serious initiatives were being taken to use it) on retail services for the concerned goods.
The Industrial Property Code (6769), which abolished previous IP-related decree laws, and the regulation on its implementation entered into force respectively on January 10 2017 and April 24 2017 (see “New IP Code enters into force: 2017 will be the year of IP rights” and “Entry into force of new Regulation on the Implementation of the Industrial Property Code”).
The New Turkish Industrial Property Code entered into force on January 10 2017.