A Chinese Company called Hisense Electronics Industry Holding Co., Ltd. has filed Israel Trademark Application Numbers 227824, 227825 for Dishwashers; electric kitchen machines; electric food processors; washing machines; wringing machines for laundry; dry-cleaning machines; refrigerator dynamos; compressed air machines; compressors for refrigerators; vacuum cleaners; electric machines and apparatus for wax-polishing; electromechanical food preparation machines; electromechanical beverage preparation machines; wrapping machines; mixing machines; sewing machines; painting machines, paint-spraying machines; electric machines and apparatus for cleaning; electric machines and apparatus for carpet shampooing; labellers (machines); electric shoe polishers; all included in class 7; for Electric appliance installation and repair; air conditioning apparatus installation and repair; freezing equipment installation and repair; kitchen equipment installation and repair; installation, maintenance and repair of computer hardware; installation and maintenance of bathroom appliances; installation and maintenance of lighting apparatus; telephone installation and repair; all included in class 37.
Meanwhile, an Israel Company called הייסנס בע”מ – which is a transliteration of HiSense LTD. has a trademark number 225321 for an Infant movement monitor in particular, and for all goods included in class 9.
The Israeli company opposed the Chinese marks. A hearing was set, at which the CEO of the Chinese company was supposed to be in attendance. Due to other commitments, he requested deferring the hearing at the last moment. HiSense Israel objected claiming that the delay would do them damage. In an attempt to come to a fair compromise regarding the deferment of the hearing, Ms Jaqueline Bracha, the Deputy Commissioner ruled that the hearing would be deferred a week, and that the delay would be considered when ruling costs.
Two companies with the same name is a state of affairs that is rather problematic. Nevertheless, the goods are different, although the infant monitor is probably electronic. One wonders if coexistence isn’t an option that would be cheaper for all concerned. We await the main ruling.