Old Jaffa Again

orange savings box

The Council for Producing Plants and Their Marketing owns rights in the word Jaffa as a geographical application of origin. They successfully opposed Israel trademark application numbers 220541 and 220542 and prevented it from issuing.

Israel Trademark Application Numbers 20542 and 220581 for OLD JAFFA, are for Preserved, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables; jellies, jams, compotes; eggs, milk and milk products; edible oils and fats; all included in class 29 and for coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar, rice, semolina, tapioca, coffee substrates, cereals, breads and baked goods, sweets, ice-creams, honey, yeast, baking powder, salt, vinegary sauces (flavorings) and spices in class 30, respectively.

Israel trademark no. 237678 covers soaps, perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions and dentifrices, all included in class 3. It previously issued without opposition. In an action combined with the opposition above, the Israel trademark 220581 (Old Jaffa) was canceled. The ruling may be found here.

The  Council for Producing Plants and Their Marketing filed for legal costs, claiming actual legal costs of 49000 Shekels. They considered that they were entitled to full costs so that they wouldn’t lose out financially.

The applicant, Yehuda Malchi, considered that the ruling by the Commissioner closed all open issues, including costs.

The Israel Patent and Trademark Commissioner, Adv. Asa Kling rejected Malchi’s position, noting that Section 69 of the trademark regulations 1972 allow the Commissioner to rule reasonable costs. Case law shows that such discretionary costs are generally ruled. Circular M.N. 80 provides a framework for requesting costs.

Having established that it was right and proper to provide costs, the Commissioner looked at the reasonableness of the costs requested.  He noted that there were two cases that were combined. The first was an opposition proceeding and the second was a cancellation proceeding and bot required a not-inconsiderable amount of work. That said, there were some items that appeared to relate to a different mark, and the costs were in dollars at a rather high exchange rate.

The Commissioner was not convinced that the actual requested costs were all deserved and ruled costs of 30,000 Shekels including VAT.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: