ISRAEL Trends and Developments Contributed by: Sanford T Colb, David Colb, Barak Mashiah and Guy Oved, Sanford T Colb & Co
If the commissioner finds that this is indeed the case, the commissioner then reviews the evi - dence submitted by the parties, and an inter partes hearing is held, in order to ascertain the extent of the use that each party has made of its mark, and in order to confirm that the parties chose their respective marks in good faith. If the commissioner reaches a conclusion as to which party has made more significant and long- term use of its mark, that party’s mark will be deemed to have precedence and its mark will be registered. Only if the commissioner concludes that the use made by the parties is more or less the same, and concludes that all of the parties have acted in good faith, will the commissioner then ascer - tain which party filed its application first and will usually deem the earlier-filed mark to have prec - edence. The commissioner also has the authority to decide to register the marks of all the compet - ing parties. The commissioner additionally has the authority not to accept a co-existence agreement reached by competing parties, and to initiate Compet - ing Trademark Proceedings, if the commissioner believes that registration of the competing par - ties’ marks may result in consumer confusion. In practice, the commissioner rarely rejects a co- existence agreement. Once the commissioner issues a decision that the mark of one of the parties has precedence over the mark/s of the other party/parties, the mark that has precedence is published for opposition, and the proprietor/s of the com - peting mark/s are entitled to oppose the pub -
lished mark, on grounds which were not already decided by the commissioner in the course of the Competing Trademark Proceedings. How to avoid Competing Trademark Proceedings This is fairly simple. Firstly, conduct an official trade mark search pri - or to the filing of the trade mark application. The results of such a search may enable the potential applicant to reconsider filing an application for a particular mark, if the applicant discovers that an application for an identical or similar mark has already been filed. Secondly, respond to official actions/provisional refusals in a timely manner. As noted in Section 29(a) above, as long as and until the mark has been accepted, it may be subject to Competing Trademark Proceedings. Case study Competing trade mark applications • Israel Trademark Application No 338131 (City Market, stylised) in Class 35 for “Retail services provided by convenience stores; all included in Class 35” in the name of Sonol Israel Ltd and So Good Ltd (hereinafter, “Application No 1”). • Israel Trademark Application No 336972 (City Market, stylised) in Class 35 for “retail and wholesale marketing of food; retail services provided by supermarkets; minimarkets; food kiosk services being retail store services fea - turing foodstuffs; stores for the sale of food, beverages and cigarettes; chain for the man - agement and operation of all of the above; all included in class 35” in the name of Yoseph Schwartz (hereinafter, “Application No 2”).
238 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook