Back in June 2014, I reported on a decision by the Israel Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks that the Chinese brand Lovol and the older and more established Swedish brand Volvo are not confusingly similar. Having persuaded the Israel Patent Office that their mark was registered in good faith and was not confusing, Hebei Aulion Heavy Industries LTD, who own the Lovol mark, were entitled to file a request for costs.
The request for costs should have been filed within two months, as per Patent Office Circular M.N. 80. Hebei missed this deadline and, three and a half months after the hearing, they filed a late request for an extension to file costs.
Volvo opposed this request.
Hebei argued that the delay was caused because they waited to see whether the ruling would be appealed. The Commissioner did not see that connection between a possible Appeal and the right to file, and the right to costs for one proceeding is quite independent of whether the ruling may eventually be appealed or overturned. Furthermore, appeals should be filed within one month of a trademark ruling, whereas a request for costs may be filed within two months of a ruling. Where an extension is requested in an ex-partes proceeding it should be requested in advance and not retroactively.
A further consideration submitted by Hebei’s agent-of-record (Wolf Bregman Goler) was that they were unaware of the Circular and their client should not be penalized for their ignorance in this manner. The Commissioner noted that the Circular issued back in February 2010 and that the agent-of-record was experienced and regularly appeared before the patent office in hearings and the like.
Citing A. Goren on Civil Procedure, the Commissioner noted that ignorance of the Law may be an excuse if objectively the Law is unclear and there hasn’t been any case-law, or, if subjectively, the legal representative had made efforts to avoid the mistake. In this instance, no evidence or arguments were submitted to establish objective or subjective grounds for clemency.
The agent of record argued that his client had a basic right to costs, that the Trademark Ordinance and regulations doesn’t establish a deadline, and so the Circular should not be considered binding. The Commissioner rejected this argument, considering that the Circular filled a lacuna and gave certainty as to whether costs would be requested or not. He considered that different practitioners should be held to the same standards. Costs should be requested at the end of a proceeding and not any time thereafter. There were no good reasons to consider the two month period insufficient, so the request was thrown out.