Polo trademark is well-known, but Ralph Loren fined for not attending hearing

September 2, 2010

When Polo Universal LTD and Apollo Adex LTD. applied for a number of trademarks (138302,3 and 138296-9) including the word Polo, the fashion house Ralph Loren filed oppositions.

After both sides submitted their evidence, a hearing was set up. However,  at the last-minute, the witness for Ralph Loren failed to show, without providing good reason for his absence. This made it impossible for the applicant’s attorneys to cross-examine.

Based on an Israel Supreme Court precedent concerning 6181/96 Yigal Cardi vs. Bacardi LTD., where a witness for the rum manufacturer failed to show, albeit with good reason, the Deputy Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Noach Shalev Shmulovich, who heard the case, decided that the evidence submitted by Ralph Loren, that could not be challenged in court, was of very limited value.

Nevertheless, since the Ralph Loren Polo mark is well-known internationally and well-known in Israel, the Deputy Commissioner ruled that there is a public interest in preventing fashion accessories marked Polo that did not originate with Ralph Loren being sold, as this would lead to consumers mistakenly purchasing goods believed to be associated with Ralph Loren, that were nothing to do with the fashion house.

Although Loren’s marks usually included a Polo player on a horse, whereas the applicants marks included what appears to be a stylized hockey stick or golf club, the  Deputy Commissioner ruled that the public would probably view the mark as two separate marks, one for the word Polo and the other for the rider, rather than two elements of a combined mark.

That the opposed marks included a second word, describing the type of good, was considered irrelevant, as there was still a likelihood of confusion as to the origin of the goods. Likewise, although when compared side by side, the opposed marks are visually different, the word Polo is so well-known for fashion goods, that there was still a likelihood of confusion, and the goods would not generally be sold side by side.

Consequently, the marks for leather goods, clothing, jewelry and the like, were disallowed, however the marks for measuring equipment were allowed on condition that optical goods were disclaimed. This was justified by pointing out that Volswagen sold a car branded as Polo, and so for non-fashion goods, the term was not associated with Ralph Loren. 

Generally, the successful party in an opposition proceedings is awarded costs, and where both sides win partially, each side carries his own legal costs. However, in this instance, to compensate the applicant’s attorney for the time wasted in preparing for a hearing where the opposer failed to show, and essentially as a punishment for contempt and for wasting the Patent Office’s time by not showing up for the hearing, the Deputy Commissioner ruled NIS 75,000 (about $20,000) in legal costs against Loren, to be paid to Polo Universal and to Apollo Adex.    

The case: Opposition to Israel trademark numbers 138302,3 and 138296-9 to Apollo Adex and Polo Universal.

IRRELEVANT COMMENTS

I enjoyed this decision, particularly the large legal costs award to the losing side. I suspect the Deputy Commissioner enjoyed awarding it as well.

I’ve also wondered why Polo Universal’s logo features a hockey stick, although I don’t either polo or hockey are widely played in Israel, so am not sure how many customers notice the mixed metaphor. I also am surprises to see button down shirts with collars sold as Polo shirts.

Probably because they are not widely available in Israel, the Polo mint was not discussed. Then again, if I remember correctly, the mints were a freebie that were wrapped around the holes…

Leave a Comment » | Intellectual Property, Israel Patent Office Rulings, Israel Trademark, trademarks | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

“Free your skin” – refused as trademark in Israel

September 2, 2010

The Eveready Battery Company LTD. filed Israel trademark application numbers 20449 and 204832 ”Free your skin” for shaving cream and gels and for razor blades in classes 3 and 8.

Ruling the marks descriptive and lacking distinctiveness, they were refused, and, in a ruling by Deputy Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Noach Shalev Shmulovich, the refusal was upheld, despite the mark being registered in the US and thus arguably allowable under Section 16.

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

The moral right of an inventor to be named

September 1, 2010

In Israel Application number 146776 titled “Device for sampling blood droplets under vacuum conditions“, Eli Oren, an employee of the Applicant, Shl Telerefua LTD. (telerufuah is Hebrew for tele-medicine) filed a request to be named as an inventor.

The Application in question was apparently allowed in Israel and should publish for Opposition purposes in the July 2010 journal, which is expected to publish in a few months as there is a backlog.

In a decision by Deputy Commissioner Noach Shalev Shmulovich, that published on 25 August 2010, it was ruled that Mr Oren is indeed an inventor and has a moral right to be acknowledged as such. In view that he wasn’t a sole inventor, he received the relatively small sum of NIS 20,000 in legal costs.

One of the issues appears to be whether a the assembler of a multi-part system or method as claimed is the inventor or if, the system or method has a point of novelty that may be conveniently identified by a ‘wherein’ clause in a US patent, or by a ‘characterized by’ statement in a European patent, then the creator of the point of novelty is the inventor.

Clearly the creator of the point of absolute novelty is a contender for inventive step, but is the assembler of the system or method merely implementing and embodying an inventive concept, or is this reducing it to practice? What is the point of invention?

I have a number of issues with the decision.

  1. The Deputy Commissioner states that the right embodied in naming the inventor is a moral right to be identified as such and there is a public interest for inventors to be acknowledged.  It is not clear where the moral right of an inventor to be acknowledged as such is to be found in the Israel Patent Law or indeed any other Israel Law.Let me put it another way – in addition to be an active blogger, I also draft patent applications. I am never acknowledged as the author of the specification. I could argue a moral right to be thus identified under the Israel Copyright Law, but this Law does not cover inventions. Indeed patents and the patent Law are about legal rights and not moral rights and are largely amoral.
  2. Another issue that I don’t understand is how come Mr Oren had status at all. Up until publication for opposition purposes, patent examination in Israel is an ex Partes procedure. Only on publication, do third parties have the right to oppose a patent issuing.
  3.  Grounds of opposition are given in Article 3 Sections 30-34, and include novelty, patentability and ownership – i.e. title to the invention). See http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/text_html.jsp?lang=EN&id=2364  In other words, even on publication of an allowed application, it does not appear that moral right of an inventor to be named in a patent application can be the basis for opposition.
  4. Under what grounds can the Israel Patent Office make a declaratory statement of ownership?

    The application was apparently allowed under Section 17c of the Law, based on the corresponding US patent no.  US 7,374,545,  i.e. by conforming the claims and text to that of the US patent. Yoram Alroy - presumably a co-inventor as stated at the end  of the decision although his rights to be named as such were also stated as not being within the ambit of the present decision  - is mentioned there as the sole inventor. In the US, the inventor(s)  are the original applicants, who may then subsequently assign their rights to another entity, often a company. Under labour law, employees may be obligated to do so. That as may be, the ruling dismisses the relevance of the US determination of the inventor since in the States “unlike in Israel, there is no clear difference between applicants and inventors”. I neither understand nor agree with that statement. If the granted patent in Israel was granted on the basis of the US invention, and has identical specification and claims thereto, it should have the same inventors, unless the definition of an inventor is different, or the definition of that invented is different.
    It appears that in the US, the identity of the inventor is determined by inventorship of the invention as claimed. One could argue that in Israel the invention is not merely the claims or not just the claims but the “pith and marrow” of the invention. Such a position could be based on the UK Law from which the Israel Law is largely derived. The Deputy Commissioner does not expressly do this, although he examines the statement of invention, the list of figures and the preferred embodiments. It is not clear to me which of these elements or all of the above is, according to the deputy commissioner, the identity of ‘the invention’. Presumably once the invention is isolated, the identity of the inventor(s) may be determined.

  5. Without a clear statement of what the invention is as far as Israel Law is concerned, the identity of the inventor – moral or otherwise is problematic. Unless it is clear that both the USPTO and the Israel Patent Office are relating to different things – then the indication that the Israel patent has different inventors than the US invention casts a cloud over the validity of the US patent, since in the US, the issue is not merely a moral one, but could indicate patent fraud. It is thus possible, that the actual cost of this moral exercise may be rather more expensive than the damages in Israel.
  6. In this regard, we note that the ruling mentions in passing at the end thereof, that the company claimed that Mr Alroi signed the new inventor Eli Oren on some document that prevented him from recognition as an inventor and/or that he’d given up his right and/or had some reason not to be credited and / or the time passed had created a bar from raising the issue.  The Deputy Cmmissioner does not think these statements are appropriate and that it is correct of the company to hide them.  – Maybe, but they are now of record. They are in the published decision. This casts a cloud over the valdity of the US case and perhaps of the European patent as well due to inequitable behavior.
  7. Ironically, the decision does nothing to clarify the definition of an inventor and the identification of the invention under Israel Law. the question raised is a good one. The answer is less satisfactory.

Leave a Comment » | Intellectual Property, Israel, Israel IP, Israel Patent, Israel Patent Office Rulings, Patents, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

Israel Police Uncover DVD Copying Lab

August 3, 2010

In a press-release issued by the special IP Enforcement Squad of the Israel Police, it appears that they have uncovered a workshop creating tens of thousands of fraudulent CDs and DVDs of software, music and films. See http://www.pnns.co.il/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8205 . Two suspects have been remanded in custody.

COMMENT

The cost of copying films, music and software is negligible, whereas that of creating them is considerable. In such a situation,  copying is to be expected.

Israel copyright law is at a reasonable level and there are attempts at enforcement, but since the costs of assembling copying equipment is minimal, and there is a business oppportunity, we can be expected to be flooded with fakes. In Israel, there is an additional problem, in that fake goods are created in the areas under Palestinian Autonomy, which makes enforcement more complicated.

The problem is apparently here to stay. nevertheless, we applaud the police for this raid.

Leave a Comment » | Copyright, Israel Copyright, Israel IP, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

Naked Cow-people Bring Tiff to Court

July 23, 2010

In addition to the more formal entertainments on offer in and around Times Square, New York, there are three scantily dressed buskers. One who calls himself the Naked Cowboy and a further two, each of which calls herself the Naked Cowgirl.

These entertainers wear cowboy hats and boots and sing to the accompaniment of their guitars.

The Naked Cowboy, Robert John Burck, was born on December 23, 1970 in Cincinnati, Ohio.  He can be viewed on his website: www.nakedcowboy.com. In his performances,  he wears a pair of y-fronts, and holds the guitar sufficiently low to conceal the garment, giving the impression that he is nude – hence the name.

Louisa Holmlund, wears a micro-skirt and a pair of little mirrors on her nipples. Both earn tips by crooning the crowds and by providing photo-shoots. Apparently, she pays royalties of $500 a month or $5000 a year to the Naked Cowboy. She can be seen on her website here: www.nakedcowgirlny.com

There is now a second Naked Cowgirl; Sandra Brodsky who calls herself Sandy Kane. She  wears a starred and striped bikini and matching cowboy hat and refuses to pay a franchise fee.   She is in her 50s.

It seems that the Naked Cowboy is the original act, that inspired or was plagiarized by the Naked Cowgirls. Both have been somewhat lapse with their trademarking, with the Naked Cowboy’s mark lapsing and being refiled, and the Naked Cowgirl’s mark also lapsing.

As the Naked Cowgirl Kane has refused to take out a ‘francise’ from the Naked Cowboy – what I suppose would be called ‘protection money’, the Naked Cowboy has sued for infringement of his IP rights.

According to Burck, Kane is ripping off his intellectual property, he also claims her act is “un-American” and makes a “mockery of the system and the trademark infringement laws.”

Having entered the silly season (onat hamalafafonim - the “cucumber season” in Hebrew), this epic battle of the sexes has been picked up by the various newspapers as well as the IP Blogs – including our friends, the IPKAT.  With a dirth of real IP stories to discuss, and with the Israel Courts in recess, I have decided to analyze this case. Noone seems to have actually commented on the legal issues. So here goes.

I don’t think that being un American is a crime, even in Time Square. The issue of trademark infringement is something that can sensibly be discussed however. I thing that both trademark registrations are limited to the combination of Naked Cow+boy and Naked Cow+girl. Both marks are somewhat descriptive, perhaps the naked cowgirl with udders on show, is even more so.

I don’t think either mark should be interpreted to give wider protection than exact copying.  In other words, the fact that both use he words Naked and Cow does not imply copyright infringement or passing off. the words Boy and Girl are opposites.

For the same reason that North Face is not infringed by South Butt, I don’t believe that the word mark Naked Cowboy is infringed by Naked Cowgirl.  I don’t think that there is a likelihood of confusion either. Male body builders look different than female strippers. It’s probably something biological.

That said, and although perhaps aiming largely at a different segment of the crowd, with the Naked Cowboy getting tips from women tourists and homosexual men, and the Naked Cowgirl attracting heterosexual men, one could argue that there is a problem in setting up a competing business on someone else’s patch.  This raises various issues. For example, does a busker, who does not invest capital in premises but who clearly invests time and energy in becoming a tourist attraction in his own right, create rights?

Ms Kane seems a little past her prime. It could be that she does have a negative impact on the trade. Is this a crime?

In Jewish Law, one cannot simply open a business opposite a competitor. the issue seems to be more one of drawing away trade than passing off. However, this halachah is not the law in New York. It seems that the State does allow one to open up souvenir shops, coffee shops, restaurants and hotels opposite similar establishments, and I am skeptical that merely because Times Square is the Naked Cowboy’s patch, that other buskers can’t perform there.

Arguably, all the cowpeople are part of the scene that keeps tourists visiting Time Square.  I don’t believe that the newspaper and postcard vendors that benefit from the buskers attracting the crowds should pay them, nor do I think that the buskers should pay the theatres for bringing the crowds.

The franchise issue is an interesting one, but I would argue that noone would assume that there is a franchise for buskers and one does not order their services, but simply tips the individual if entertained. The tip is generated by the behavior of the individual at the time that the tip is made. It is not something related to the chain.

A waitress working in a chain of restaurants would not be expected to share her tips, so why should a busker?

Singing songs created by Burck would be copyright infringement. The combination of a cowboy hat, boots and underwear is not.  As is often the case, there is a confusion between an idea and the expression of the idea. Dance steps, routines, songs and the like can be protected with copyright. I don’t think the basic idea of the act can be.

Burke claims that Kane’s performances have caused “confusion” with the public and may put “a potentially permanent devaluation on a real American Brand and Icon.”

It is not the first time that Burke has gone to court to protect his trademark. In February 2008 he sued Mars Inc. in federal court in Manhattan, alleging that a blue M&M character, dressed in underpants and boots that appeared in the candy’s advertisements, violated his trademark. That suit was resolved in November that year. Neither party gave a reason for the dismissal with prejudice, which prevented Burck from re-filing his lawsuit.

The M&M advertisment was one of a series, which included an M&M dressed as the Statue of Liberty and an M&M as King Kong climbing the Empire State Building.

U.S. District Judge Denny Chin, who presided over the earlier lawsuit, ruled that Mars had to face Burck’s false- endorsement claim,wherein he claimed that there was a potential for consumers to believe Burck supported the ads. However, Burke’s right-of-publicity claim against M&M was refused.

Louise Holmlund had a stronger case of claiming trademark infringement as she’d held a mark for Naked Cowgirl. Unfortunately, however, it died in 2007.

Likelihood of confusion with Burke, not convincing. His second claim seems to be one of dilution. Here he may have a point. I think the case should be thrown out. Both sides will probably gain from the publicity in the meantime though.

1 Comment | Copyright, Fair Use, passing off, plagiarism, trademarks | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

Competing Marks for Play Condoms – a Strange Decision

July 20, 2010

Apparently LRC Products Ltd. (Durex) and Ansell Limited (Life Style) both filed trademarks for condoms that included the word Play.

Durex filed two marks: IL 174678 for the word mark Play, and IL 174730 for the word mark DUREX PLAY. 

Life Styles filed application number IL 178348 for Life Style Play, as a graphic mark :

 

 As these marks were all competing marks, as evidenced by the opening line of the decision: “Before me are competing applications”, one would expect that the filing dates and classes were of some importance. Apparently not, since these were not reported in the decision.

For those interested, the word mark application for Play - IL 174678 was filed on 12 September 2004 in class 10 (Medical Devices) for the following list of goods: Condoms; contraceptive, hygienic or prophylactic devices; massage apparatus, instruments and appliances; electric and electronic message apparatus, instruments and appliances; body massagers; personal massagers; vibrators; marital aids; sex aids; parts and fittings for all the aforesaid goods; all included in class 10.

Lifestyle’s mark was filed on 8 February 2005 for condoms in the same class.

Two companies cannot both be awarded the same mark for the same goods as trademarks are supposed to be indications of origin. Once a mark is awarded to one party, a second party can only register the same mark if the first mark is canceled.

In cases of competing marks, where a second similar mark is filed after a first mark is applied for but before the first mark is allowed, the regulations determine which mark is to be examined, using a first-to-file principle.  The chronological hierarchy is, however tempered by the extent of usage of the mark and by issues of equitable behavior. The law regarding Competing Marks is found in Section 29 of the Trademark Ordinance.

Current Case Law establishes that a mark that is first filed and in use prior to examination, that was applied for without evidence of inequitable behavior, should be examined first.  The grounds for deciding are:

  1. Date of application
  2. Usage of the mark
  3. Equitable behavior

Trademark applications are ex partes procedures. Only if and when a mark is allowed, i.e. after the examiner establishes that the mark is sufficiently distinctive from other, earlier marks, and not too generic to be allowed, or with disclaimers for generic elements, etc. the mark publishes for opposition purposes, which is an inter partes procedure where other parties can claim that the mark belongs to them, or is generic, etc. 

Judge Gronis ruled in the case of Sabon Shel Paam, that despite the occasional uncomfortable feelings arising from awarding a mark in accordance with trademark regulation 29a, to one party, with the other side losing, such is the nature of trademark rulings. Deciding such cases results in one side winning and the other losing.

Judge Gronis’ decision was cited in the ruling in this case, so was clearly known to the Deputy Commissioner Noach Shalev Shmulovich who ruled in this case.

The situation is that a subsequent filing of a second mark should not prevent the first mark from being examined on its merits. At least so we thought…

Perhaps because they had no grounds under the regulations or the case-law to prevail, Lifestyles, represented by Adv. David Wahlberg, decided to focus their arguments on the substantive issue of whether the word Play could be considered distinctive in the context of condoms and vibrators, etc.

Surprisingly, instead of pointing out that the question of apparent distinctiveness was for examination by the trademark examiner and, if necessary, for appealing in an opposition proceedings, having decided which mark should be examined, the Deputy Commissioner, Noach Shalev Shmulovich decided to relate to that issue, ignoring the legal issue before him.

There is some precedence for so doing, e.g. the Eshel decision, where both Tnuva and Yotvata filed marks for the word eshel, seen as generic for the product -  a sort of fromage frais. 

Nevertheless, in a later decision, relating to the issue of “Kochav Nolad” (literally A Star is Born), it was clearly stated that in cases of competing marks, the registerability of the mark is not an issue, merely which party is considered as taking precedence. 

Shmulovich hypothesized that the examiner would probably have ruled that the term Play was too broad and would have rejected the word mark Play and accepted the Durex Play mark with a disclaimer from the word play, leaving the way open to Lifestyles to then have their mark examined. He therefore refused IL 174678 and allowed both IL17430 and IL 178348.

In other words, both Durex and Lifestyle can continue to sell condoms under the name Play, provided that the manufacturer continues to be clearly indicated.

To add insult to injury, Shmulovich awarded costs to Lifestyle as he’d cancelled the simple Play mark applied for by Durex. But if no opposition was filed, why should Lifestyle receive costs? 

The fact that a product has historically been sold by line name and brand name together, should not necessarily be taken as sufficient to prevent the line name from being registered. At least not whilst the patent office is allowing such secondary marks to be registered and generating a not inconsiderable income whilst so doing.

If sexual intercourse with condoms is considered as playing, the term Play may be too generic to be registered for condoms in and of itself. So be it. That decision is separate from the issue of that of competing marks.

Publishing decisions should help clarify the law and create a corpus of case-law that makes clear what the relevant considerations are. This decision contradicts earlier rulings and seems to clarify that there are no rules and no guidelines.

Could be worse though. Following the decision in Hamastan to not allow trademarks to be registered for alcoholic drinks, the trademark office could have taken a tough approach against birth control, particularly condoms which have been particularly frowned upon by the Rabbis, and prevented registration on morality grounds

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

The BBC has a satellite channel called Lifestyles. There are other users of the name that don’t necessarily sell condoms and the like.

Catholics and others may take exception to using a brand name including the word  ’life’ with a contraceptive. I merely note the irony.

Finally, we note that Warner Brothers are suing the swedish condom manufacturer MagicX for trademark infringement regarding their Harry Popper brand of prophylactics which they see as tarnishing the teenage wizard’s reputation.  See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/harry-potter/7953878/Harry-Popper-condoms-sued-by-Warner-Brothers.html

Leave a Comment » | Israel Patent Office Rulings, Israel Trademark, trademarks | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

Chinese Commissioner of Patents Speaks in Tel Aviv

July 8, 2010

Minister Tian Lipu, Commissioner of the State Intellectual Property Office of China spoke to a select group of patent attorneys and industrialists in a meeting held at the Dan Hotel, under the joint auspices of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the High Tech Industry Association (HTIA).

After Opening Remarks delivered by Mr. Oded Hermoni, CEO of the High Tech Industry Association, a representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and by Dr. Meir Noam, Head of the Israeli Patent Authority and Commissioner of Patents Designs and Trademarks, we were treated to a short and informative talk about IP in China delivered by Adv. Ehud Hausman, a patent attorney and Senior Partner of Reinhold Cohn.

Then Amir Gal-Or, Founder & Managing Partner of the Infinity Group/Infinity I-China spoke about investment and return on investment in China. All the above, spoke in English, despite none of them being native English speakers.

Tian Lipu, the head of the Chinese Patent Office introduced himself briefly in English, but then spoke via an interpreter, which is not a bad idea for non-English speakers.

Apart from the competence of the diminutive lady translating, which made the translation not unpleasant, I actually enjoyed hearing the deep twangy intonations of the Chinese – although I couldn’t understand a word.

Tian Lipu spoke of the fast changes being implemented in China, a country with no tradition of Intellectual Property. the commissioner pointed out that of the 1.2 Billion Chinese in 1979 when he started in the field, perhaps 12 people knew what a patent was, 4 could assess infringement and none could examine.

We learnt that the Chinese patent Law dates from the nineteen eighties and that the first Chinese term for IPR was first coined in 2000.

Commissioner Tian Lipu generously acknowledged both Israeli and Jewish long traditions of IP. We learned that Israel and China had signed a memorandum on cooperation, which indicates the mutual respect and importance held by the two patent offices and of Israeli and Chinese industries.

Commissioner Tian Lipu acknowledged a thousand year history of peaceful commerce between the Jews and the Chinese and expressed hopes that this could be built upon for the next millenium. We learned a little about the scale of things in China, and contemplated what extraordinary good money a Chinese patent is.

Most of the presentation related to the development of Chinese intellectual property system, current Chinese Patent Law and why IPR protection important to independent innovation. Commissioner Lipu took questions and answered fairly, admitting that there were still problems with enforcement and with the quantity of fake goods coming out of China, but pointed out where the system started only 25 years ago, and that there were a lot of people requiring education about IP rights. It is clear that Chinese system is leading towards an advanced pro IP regime, similar to those common in the West.

Lipu argued, and her is correct, that the Chinese cannot be fairly considered responsible for every fake good or infringing product manufactured in China, where the goods are ordered by suppliers from abroad.

We learned, that in addition to checking goods imported into China, the country was unique in checking goods exported abroad for IP infringement. The commissioner put a fair case that statistics on infringement and cost of infringing goods should be compared to the billions that China invests in royalties to Western countries, that get’s less coverage.

The chocolate eclairs where good, and, as is well-known, no calories on a thursday! The organizers and sponsors are to be congratulated for throwing together the event so quickly.

Leave a Comment » | China, Intellectual Property, News, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

The Six Million Shequel Claim

June 16, 2010

Israel State television (Israel Channel 1) has sued the commercial channels Israel Channel 2 and Israel Channel 10, for NIS 6,000,000 claiming that they had signed an exclusive agreement to screen the Beijing Olympics and that the commercial channels were only allowed to screen up to 30 seconds extracts in news programs, and these no more than three times a day.

The charges detail a blow by blow list of broadcasts. The plaintiff alleges that they are actually entitled to sue for more since each infringement is separately actionable but to lubricate the process, were limiting the amount claimed to NIS 3,000,000 to each channel and to the directors thereof.

Comment

We suspect that the timing of this suit and the World Cup is not incidental. Apart from that, I wonder why my TV licence fee goes to pay for the type of television that is commercial? Why doesn’t the Israel State TV use it’s income to support Israel film and documentary makers, etc.? Why not broadcast coverage of local, less commercially attractive sports, like high school soccer, or kick-the-can? 

Then again, the commercial sides need to be punished. Why should I have Hobson’s Choice of the same sporty rubbish on all channels?

Leave a Comment » | Copyright, Intellectual Property, Israel, Israel Copyright, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

Seller of Fake Detergents Gets Fine and Jail sentence

June 9, 2010

 

The Nazareth District Court sentenced 27-year-old Khalid Hamuda, an Arab shop-keeper, to a year in prison and a NIS 30,000 fine for selling fake goods. The sentence was the result of a plea bargain. 

The shop-keeper sold laundry detergents bearing fake trademarks for Tide, Ariel, fake chocolate-spread of the Israeli brand-leading Shahar Ha-Oleh brand, and fake Pantene and Head & Shoulders shampoos in his grocery store.

In passing sentence, Nazareth District Court President George Azouli stated that “with economic crime of this nature, the public interest requires a severe punishment which acts as a deterrent and prevents systematic trademark fraud from becoming widespread and damaging the brand owners economically and undermines their hard-earned reputation”. He went on to say that the public is damaged as they spend hard-earned cash on what appears to be leading brands but is, in fact, cheap rubbish.” With respect to the issuance of a fine, in addition to jail sentence, the judge explained that crimes committed for financial gain should be punished by fines to get the criminal where it hurts.

Our Comments

The crimes were committed in 2008 when a gang stole 100 tonnes of the chocolate spread from the Shachar Oleh factory warehouse, so one wonders if he wasn’t selling the real thing as the real thing.

The other products all are leading brands owned by Proctor & Gamble.

 Although clothing with fake logos from the Far East are more common, as is fake Viagra, music disks and software, we note that last year, fake suntan cream resulted in Israeli sunbathers getting severely sun-burnt.

Leave a Comment » | Business Method, Israel IP, News, infringement, passing off, trademarks | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

INTA II – Looking for Leslie

May 30, 2010

The big problem with INTA is that there are so many participants that setting up a meeting with someone you’ve never met can create difficulties.

I had a meeting set up with ‘Leslie’, in-house counsel of a Fortune 500 company. We arranged to meet at the entrance to the exhibition center. Unfortunately, so did a further couple of hundred patent and trademark attorneys. I wasn’t even sure if Leslie was male or female, so found myself checking the name cards on everyone else. It took me back to my single days when, on occasion, I was set up for blind dates.

Most participants suspended their cards from a ribbon around their neck, so one has to read cards on people’s chests. This can be somewhat embarrassing.

We didn’t manage to make contact as planned, but Leslie came past the stall later and we rescheduled.

Next time, I am going to ask people to send me their photo in advance.

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

« Previous Entries