January 19, 2015


A Turkish company called GÜNEYSI IÇ VE DIS TICARET ANONIM SIRKETI filed an International Trademark Application as shown, for chemical preparations for medical purposes, chemico-pharmaceutical preparations, dietetic foods adapted for medical purposes, medical preparations for slimming purposes, food for babies, material for stopping teeth, dental wax; disinfectants; preparations for destroying noxious plants, materials for dressings, preparations for destroying vermin; fungicides, air freshening preparations, antiseptics – in class 5; Meat, fish, poultry and game; meat extracts; beans, preserved, soups, preparations for making bouillon, olives, preserved, milk and milk products, butter, edible oils and fats, preserved, frozen, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables, nuts, prepared, peanut butter, tahini (sesame seed paste), eggs and powdered eggs, non-medical foods use for supplementary purposes (including pollens, proteins, carbonate), potato chips in class 29; Coffee, cocoa, coffee substitutes, coffee or cocoa based beverages, chocolate based beverages, macaroni, ravioli, vermicelli, pastry and bakery products, desserts, honey, royal jelly, propolis (bee gum), condiments for foodstuff, yeasts, baking powder, natural substances for improving shape and color of bread and retarding its period of getting stale, all kinds of flour, semolina, corn starch, crystal sugar, cubed sugar, powdered sugar, tea, ice tea, confectionery, chocolates, biscuits, crackers; waffles, chewing gums, ice creams, edible ice, salt, grain (cereals) and products made from cereal, treacle in class 30 and Beers, preparations for making beer, mineral waters, spring waters, table water, soda waters, tonic waters, vegetable and fruit juices, their concentrations and extracts, beverages in class 32.

The mark received Israel Trademark Number 251385 and during the three-month period “Holley Performance Products, Inc” opposed the mark in Israel, and the Israel Patent Office informed the International Madrid Mechanism. Since Applicant did not respond to the Opposition, the mark has been canceled.


I suspect that with the mark filed for an enormous range of goods it is more than likely that the mark and Holley Performance could have hammered out a coexistence agreement.

“Scarless” Refused Trademark Registration

January 19, 2015

Medicure Technologies LTD applied for ISrael Tademark No. 248551 for the work ‘Scarless’ in class 5, for a gel that prevents tissue scarring.

The Israel Trademark Department refused to register the mark, ruling that it is descriptive and cannot be registered due to Section 8a of the Trademark Ordinance since the mark is lacking in characteristics required for the term to be used for branding purposes.

The Applicant argued that the product they were selling was a gel and the word Scarless does not imply a gel. Someone hearing the name Scarless, would, at best, consider it as hinting at the product, and noted that there were marks such as “Follow Up Postage” and New Look, which are far more descriptive. The Applicant requested judicial review of the Examiner’s decision, based on the submissions in the file forgoing the right to a hearing.

The Deputy Commissioner, Ms Jacqueline Bracha noted that since the Applicant had not raised the issue of acquired distinctiveness, this was an issue that she need not address. She further noted that the mark scarless was a word mark.

As to marks that hint, Ms Bracha gave the example of magazines with titles such as Family, as being such marks. Quoting Seligsohn 1972 (The Israel Trademark Bible), she noted that a makr that indicates the purpose of a product or the results of use of the product are considered descriptive.

Citing Kerly’s Law of Tradmarkas and Tradenames:

“The situations specifically covered by [arts 3(1)(c)/7(1)(c)] are those in which the sign is capable of designating a “characteristic” of the goods or services referred to in the application….

The provision extends to any characteristic whatsoever of goods or services, irrespective of how significant the characteristic may be commercially.”

Whilst acknowledging that the desired mark does not include the word gel, she considered this irrelevant in asserting that the mark is descriptive.

She went on to examine the ‘New Look’ mark cited by the applicant, and also the slogan ‘Free Your Skin’ and came to the conclusion that the mark “Scarless” was indeed descriptive and, upheld the Examiner’s decision not to allow it to be registered.


The Deputy Commissioner is correct. Whilst the product sold is a gel with alleged scar preventing properties, the customer purchases a way of preventing scarring and couldn’t care two hoots if he product is a gel, a roll-on preparation or an aerosol spray. The term scarless is descriptive of the main property of the product and it would be wrong to allow one manufacturer a monopoly on this descriptive term.

Furthermore, a quick Internet search shows that there a plethora of products and plastic surgeries that use the term scarless.

January 15, 2015


The Center for Actualizing Medical Rights LTD extensively use a radio advertisement that starts “חלית? נפצעת?” i.e. “You’ve become ill? You’ve been wounded?”. It then goes on to offer advice that is not legal advice and gives a phone number.

The Israel Bar is less than happy with this and similar organizations offering ‘non legal advice’.  That as may be, On 2 January 2102, the Center  filed Israel trademark no. 243620 for “You’ve become ill? You’ve been wounded?” in classes 36 and 45.

The trademark department refused to register the mark as lacking distinctiveness and as being descriptive of the services provided and thus not registerable under Section 11(10) of the trademark ordinance 1972.  The Center claimed that the mark had acquired distinctiveness through use and submitted affidavits from MS Gitit Shlomi, Head of Foreign Connections and from an expert. The trademark department remained unconvinced, however.  Representatives of the Center requested an oral hearing, submitted a further affidavit from Ms Shlomi and also requested that sections of their evidence remain confidential from third parties.

During the examination period, Zchuti (My Rights), a competing non-legal advice company that also advertises extensively on the radio, filed a statement to the effect that the desired mark was generic and that allowing one service provider to monopolize it would provide that party with an unfair advantage. They also submitted four examples of how they were also using the phrase. This letter was not forwarded to the applicants, but was shown to them at the hearing and they were allowed to respond in any way they desired.

Ms Jacqueline Bracha analyzed the case and concluded that there were  three legal   issues to address:

  1. the status of the third-party submission
  2. the request for confidentiality of applicants submissions
  3. whether the mark was registerable, particularly whether or not it had acquired distinctiveness.

She went on to analyze these considerations in turn.

The status of the third-party submission

Applicant considered Zchuti’s submission should be ignored as they are not a party in the trademark registration procedure and can choose to submit their objections to the mark being registered in an opposition proceedings. Furthermore, their submission was not submitted as an affidavit and should be ignored for that reason as well.

In her Ruling, Ms Bracha noted that unlike the Israel Patent Law 1967 which specifically allows third-party submissions prior to examination proceeding, the trademark ordinance is silent on the matter. To the extent that such submissions are relevant to the registration process, examiners may take the submitted material into account but should inform the applicant to give the applicant a chance to respond. Support for this position was based on Christopher Morcom, Ashley Roughton & James Graham, The Modern Law of Trade Marks 164 (1999) and Judge Zamir’s comments in 987/94 Euronet golden Lines (1992) vs. Minister of telecommunications P.D. 48(5) 412, 423. She therefore rejected the Applicant’s position in this regard. As the submission was a factual one, there was no obligation for it to be backed up by an affidavit either.

The Applicant requested that some of their evidence remain confidential as it relates to trade secrets. The confidentiality request relies on Circular 028/2014 which opens up trademark examination files to third parties.

Section 23 of the Trade Law allows the courts to maintain confidential trade secrets submitted in a legal case and to set rules for submitting trade-secrets as evidence. The courts may issue a non-publication order on trade-secrets if the maintaining of something as a trade-secret does not prevent justice from occurring. Judicial personnel such as patent examiners are included in the courts. In the case of 2376/13 Rami-Levi vs. Moshe Dahan the Supreme Court noted that trade-secret confidentiality was ad hoc by its nature.

Ms Bracha ruled that to the extent that data submitted is relied upon to show use of a mark and acquired distinctiveness, the public has a right to know the data. On the other hand, other business related data can and may be kept secret. The number of workers at the Center is not germane to the issue of registration of the mark, nor is the sum spent in advertising. It is sufficient to note that the mark has been used extensively over a period of years. As far as the ex partes registration procedure is concerned, the material could be kept confidential. However, should the mark be allowed and Zchuti or some other third party should file an opposition, the confidentiality request issue would have to be reassessed.

As to the registerability of the mark, both Ms Shlomi’s evidence and the independent expert testimony by Professor Katz show that the public identifies the slogan “You’ve become ill? You’ve been wounded?” with the Center for Actualizing Medical Rights LTD.

The mark is not descriptive. The phrase You’ve become ill? You’ve been wounded?”  does not relate to compensation from national or private insurance. Zchuti’s usage of the mark does not render it generic.  Ms B racha ruled that the mark may be registered as allowed and published for opposition purposes.

Israel trademark no. 243620 for “You’ve become ill? You’ve been wounded?” ex-partes hearing, Ms Bracha, 1 Dec 2014.

Hearsay in Affidavits

January 15, 2015


The Karelia Tobacco Company Inc. owns Israel Trademark No. 103603. Dubak LTD opposed the mark.

Karelia requested that sections of an affidavit by a Mr Gleiberman that was submitted by Dubak should be deleted as being hearsay and beyond that directly known by the Gleiberman.

Ms Yaars Shoshani Caspi, an Adjuicator of IP at the Israel Patent Office ruled that without Mr Gleiberman being cross-examined it was too early to tell with any certainly what parts, if any, were hearsay and what was directly known to him.  She therefore refused to order sections deleted prior to the hearing.

Trademark Trolling? Proctor & Gamble’s Actipearls Mark Opposed

January 12, 2015


The Proctor & Gamble Company submitted Israel trademark application No. 250720 “Actipearls”. The mark covers feminine hygiene and menstruation products, including sanitary napkins and tampons, panty-liners, internal absorbents and pads for feminine protection; all goods included in class 5. They are used as a deodorizing additive to Always products.

Super Medic (Medic Lite) LTD who apparently use the mark for toothpaste, opposed the mark. Proctor & Gamble have asked that Super Medic post a bond of 100,000 Shekels to cover costs should they lose their opposition.

The request for this sum was backed by the fact that in another proceeding, an expert witness for the defendant testified that Super Medic (Medic Lite) LTD is a straw company held for fighting legal battles only. The request related to an earlier decision concerning 243678 and was supported by an affidavit from a Ms Ben Naftali, a pre-article clerk (I suppose this is more interesting than photocopying and collating documents).

Super Medic (Medic Lite) LTD counter claimed that the timing of the bond request, which is after the filing of evidence by the opposer is indicative of inequitable behavior. The affidavit has been held by Applicants for over a year and only now is it being pulled out. Super Medic (Medic Lite) LTD also asserted that the request was not properly supported by an opinion regarding the likelihood of success, since the pre-article clerk was unqualified to opine on the subject. Super Medic consider that their chances of prevailing in this instance are high and therefore the request for bond should be rejected. Super Medic further noted that they had only recently deposited 400,000 NIS in the court’s coffers in another case where they were suing for 42,000,000 NIS. In that case they claimed that there was a ruling of over 8 million shekels in their favour. They further provided an accountant statement that their annual tax returns were regularly filed and taxes were paid, and a bank statement that they settled their debts. Finally, they filed an affidavit of the opposer to support their claim of liquidity.

Applicants countered that Super Medic has not yet lost a case and the financial status was based on an assumption of winning, and that anyway, the likelihood of success was only of relevance in the proportionality of the bond if it were to be considered excessive.


The starting point is that limited companies initiating legal proceedings are required (if requested) to place a bond to cover expenses should they fail, see Section 353a of the company Law 199, and Supreme Appeals 10376/07 L.N. Engineering vs. Bank HaPoalim LTD, and 857/11 Beer Tuvia Municipality vs. Noris Development and Haulage LTD.

For a company to be exempt having to post a bond, the onus is on them to show financial resources or other reasons that might justify not requiring a bond. In this instance, Super Medic claims that such other reasons exist, i.e. a very high likelihood of success, proven liquidity and inequitable behaviour on the part of the Applicant.

Proctor & Gamble consider that Super Medic’s mark is not sufficiently close for there to be a case to answer to. Super Medic have submitted their evidence, but Proctor & Gamble are yet to do so. In the circumstances, Deputy Commissioner Ms Bracha considered it too early to ascertain the likelihood of success.

Ms Bracha rejected the argument that Super Medic are suffering loses from Proctor & Gamble’s use of the mark and therefore should not have to post a bond, noting that in another case Super Medic bankrupted an opposer.

As to the 8 million expected in the other case, Ms Bracha noted that there was no such ruling yet. Furthermore, she accepted P&G’s contention that the 400,000 Shekels bond in that case may have been a loan and does not indicate that Super Medic has resources. Documents provided by Super Medic did show other financial activity but did not indicate liquidity of a solid financial footing. Furthermore, their own witness had, in another case, indicated a lack of seizable assets.

The arguments of inequitable behaviour were also rejected.

Ms Bracha concluded that requiring a bond was reasonable in the circumstances as there was insufficient reason to deviate from the norm. Noting, however, that such bonds have to be reasonable, and in view of the fact that in a different pending case she had ruled that a bond of 20,000 Shekels was appropriate she ordered Super Medic to deposit a bond of 15000 Shekels to cover legal costs, if ruled against them within 30 days a s a prerequisite of continuing the proceeding. The Applicant will have two months to file their evidence from the payment of the bond.

Interim ruling on posting a bond in opposition to TM 250720 to Proctor & Gamble, opposer Super Medic, Ms Jacqueline Bracha, 21 December 2014.


Pearls are created by shellfish such as oysters to isolate and coat over natural irritants. It seems that Active Pearls is a trademark used by Fa’s Deo Stick Deodorant which is owned by Henkel. It is used by a company called Physioderm as a brand for high-performance skin cleanser with dirt-binding castor-oil wax pearls for the removal of heavy dirt, e.g. oil, soot, metallic dust and graphite. Dr Tim sells active pearls as an additive to aquariums.

There seem to be many women who object to the actipearls marketing exercise of Proctor & Gamble, and consider it misogynistic. They find the concept of artificially perfumed sanitary pads offensive and likely to increase risk of infection or late detection of same. One example is here .

Getting back on subject, if Super Medic is indeed a legal entity without assets, posting a bond seems reasonable. In general, there has to be some consequences of losing law suits and against filing frivolous law suits. If the US courts adopted this position, much of the problem of trolling would disappear.

On the other hand, the story of Naboth’s Vineyard, and indeed, that of Bat Sheva amply demonstrate the problem of power players riding roughshod over smaller parties. If a company like P&G should decide to use a trademark registered to a small company or in owned by the small company by virtue of the Common Law, the smaller parties should have access to the courts and shouldn’t have unnecessary barriers put in their way, such as having to pay inflated bonds.

Russian Standard Revisited

January 12, 2015


Roust Incorporated and Russian Standard Intellectual Property Holding A.G. attempted to file the English term ‘Russian Standard’ and the equivalent Russian term ‘Русский Стандарт’ as registered trademarks in seven categories.

In September 2013, Ms Jacqueline Bracha refused to allow the marks to be registered. See here. Application numbers  227464 and  227465 in class 33 for alcoholic drinks were not allowed to the existence of identical marks to the second applicant only. The other marks were rejected as lacking minimal distinctiveness.

Applicants appealed to the Tel Aviv District Court in 13652-10-13. The District Court addressed two issues. Firstly, could registration of a mark to one applicant in and of itself prevent registration of an identical mark to that applicant together with a second party? Secondly, was Russian Standard a mark able to indicate a specific supplier, or was it simply generic? The Court suggested that a third legal entity be created and that the registered and the new marks be assigned to that entity. The applicants set up this legal entity, assigned the pending and the issued marks and the pending cases were referred back to the patent office to rule on their merits.

The Deputy Commissioner surmised that the Court had apparently considered that this would solve the double registration issue and the patent office could then examine the marks on their merit.  Ms Bracha noted that although the assignment had yet to be registered so the present ruling is based on the assignment being registered. She went on to rule that the marks in Class 33 (alcoholic beverages) lacked distinctiveness. However, as to the other classes, Section 16 allows marks having minimal distinctiveness to be registered based on corresponding foreign registrations. Once the marks were assigned to a common party, section 16 could thus be invoked. What was important was that customers could identify the source of the goods, not that the mark owner.

The Applicant claimed that the Court had intentionally not related to the double registration issue implicitly out of respect to the patent office decision, and in the circumstances, without the court forbidding it, the marks could be registered. Ms Bracha considered that the marks were returned to her to reconsider. She was willing to allow registration of the marks in other classes based on the foreign registration, but as far as class 33 was concerned, she upheld her decision that Russian standard is laudatory and the marks cannot be registered.

Karelia Royal, Deleting Parts of the Evidence

January 5, 2015

Karelia Tobacco Company LTD has an Israel trademark no.103603 for “Karelia Royal”. Dubak LTD opposed the mark.

On 20 October 2014 Karelia requested that parts of the affidavit of Mr Gleiberman, witness for Dubak, was hearsay and should be deleted from the affidavit due to the trend in Israel law to narrow the range of acceptable evidence and to relate to what is substantiated.

The Adjudicator at the Israel Patent Office Ms Shoshani Caspi felt that establishing what is hearsay and what is known by the witness requires cross-examining the witness and can’t be decided up front with any degree of certainty.

The request was rejected but no costs were awarded.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 376 other followers