Abandoned Patent Opposition Converted into Ex-Partes Procedure

April 20, 2018

Israel Patent Application No. 220476 to Mapi Pharma titled “Long Acting Depot System Comprising a Pharmaceutical Acceptable Salt of Glatiramer” was allowed and published for opposition purposes. Teva filed an opposition under Section 34 of the Law.

glatiramer

The application relates to a dosing regime of Glatiramer and salts thereof. The drug is an immunomodulator medication used to treat multiple sclerosis.

The application is a national stage of a PCT filed on 19 August 2010 which claims priority from an American patent application of 4 January 2010.

The patent was examined and published for opposition purposes on 31 March 2016. On 28 June 2016, Teva filed an opposition. After the parties submitted their statements of case, Teva withdrew their opposition for commercial reasons.

Under Section 34 of the Patent Law 1967, the Commissioner has to decide whether the suspended opposition provides a sufficient basis for the patent to be granted.

In their Statement of Case Teva raised various issues regarding the patentability of the claimed invention. Since no evidence was submitted, the Deputy Commissioner concentrated on the allegation that the publication of WO2005/041933 from 12 May 2005 anticipates the invention and negates novelty.

Claim 1 recites:

“A long acting parenteral pharmaceutical composition comprising a therapeutically effective amount of a pharmaceutically acceptable salt of glatiramer, the composition being in a sustained release depot form which releases a therapeutically effective amount of the pharmaceutically acceptable salt of glatiramer over a period of about one week to about 6 months.”

Paragraph 20 of the Statement of Case which from paragraph 58 of their counter statement, it appears the patentee accepts, construes claim 1 as follows:

  1. A long acting pharmaceutical composition
  2. For parenteral dosing
  3. comprising a therapeutically effective amount of a pharmaceutically acceptable salt of glatiramer,
  4. the composition being in a sustained release depot form
  5. which releases a therapeutically effective amount of the pharmaceutically acceptable salt of glatiramer over a period of about one week to about 6 months.

Read the rest of this entry »


A Fresh Trademark Opposition Costs Ruling

March 23, 2018

be fresh

On 14 April 2015, Benny Pauza Sumum (2009) ltd. submitted Israel trademark application no. 273816 in classes 32 and 33 for Be Fresh, as shown. The mark was allowed on 4 May 2017 and published for opposition purposes. On 27 July 2017, a Turkish company called Cakiemelikoglu Maden Suyu Isletmesi Sanay Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi filed an opposition against the class 32 registration. On 27 September 2018 the Applicant filed a counter-statement of case. The Opposer chose not to file their evidence and on 1 January 2018, the agent-of-record of the Applicant approached the Opposer directly. In the absence of a response, three weeks later, the Applicant requested that the Opposition be rejected and that costs be awarded.

Ruling

Under Section 38 of the Israel Trademark Ordinance 1940, the Opposer should have filed their evidence by 28 September 2017. Until now, the Opposer has failed to submit evidence in an Opposition proceeding they themselves initiated. Consequently, under Section 39, the Opposer is considered as a party that abandoned a legal proceeding that they themselves initiated.

If the Opposer does not submit evidence, he is considered as having abandoned the Opposition unless the Commissioner rules otherwise.

In this instance, the Applicant requested real costs of 21,060 Shekels including VAT for filing the counter Statement-of-Case and also for filing the request to close the file. The request was accompanied by a tax invoice showing that the charges were indeed incurred.

It is true that the winning side is entitled to real costs, i.e. those actually incurred. However, the Arbitrator is not required to award the costs incurred, and should consider the circumstances and legal policy. See Appeal 6793/08 Luar ltd vs. Meshulam Levinstein Engineering and Sub-contracting ltd, 28 June 2009, and particularly section 19 thereof.

The case-law requires the party requesting costs to show that they are reasonable, proportional and necessary for conducting the proceedings in the specific circumstances. See Bagatz 891/05 Tnuva Cooperative et al. vs. The Authority for Import and Export Licenses at the Dept of Industry, 30 June 2005, p.d. 60(1) 600, 615. The purpose of the reasonable, proportional and necessary limitation is:

To prevent a situation where the costs are so high that they will discourage parties from filing suit, create a lack of equality before the law and make litigation too expensive to enable access to the judiciary. (Appeal 2617/00 Kinneret Quarries Partnership vs. the Municipal Committee for Planning and Construction, Nazareth Elite, p.d. 60(1) 600 (2005) paragraph 20).

The amount of work invested in the proceeding and in the preparation of legal submissions, the legal and factual complexity of the case, the stage reached, the parties behavior to each other and to the court and any inequitable behavior are all taken into account in the ‘specifics of the case’.

The reasonableness of actual costs was considered in Re Tnuva on page 18 paragraph 24, and it was ruled that where an issue is significant to a party it is reasonable for him to invest more heavily in the legal proceedings and doing so is likely to be considered reasonable.

That said, the more a cost claim appears exaggerated, the more evidence is required to substantiate it. See for example, the Opposition to IL 153109 Unipharm vs. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, cost request paragraph 9, 29 March 2011. 

Section 69 of the Trademark Ordinance 1972 states that:

In all hearings before the Commissioner, the Commissioner is entitled to award costs he considers as reasonable.

The Court of the Patent and Trademark Authority has previously ruled that simply submitting a copy of an invoice is insufficient. The requester for costs should detail the actions performed, and why they were reasonable, and similarly for the other parameters detailed in re Tnuva. From the submission it is apparent that the Applicant has not submitted sufficient evidence to support the cost claim to justify it. Consequently the Adjudicator Ms Shoshani Caspi estimates appropriate costs for the work involved.

In this case the mark holder had to file a counter-statement-of-case and a costs request. The case does not appear to be particularly complicated and the Applicant did not have to file evidence since the case was abandoned. Nevertheless, the Opposer initiated and then abandoned the procedure and didn’t even bother telling the Patent Office that they had done so.

After humming and hawing detailed consideration and by her authority under Section 69 of the Ordinance, the Adjudicator ruled that 4500 NIS + VAT was appropriate and gave the Opposer 14 days to pay this, or to incur interest.

Opposition to Israel trademark no. 273816  “Be Fresh”, cost ruling by Ms Shoshani Caspi, 21 February 2018


Unipharm without legal representation, wins Interim Proceeding Against Novartis

February 22, 2018

galvusIsrael  Patent Application No. 176831 to Novartis is titled “COMPRESSED PHARMACEUTICAL TABLETS OR DIRECT COMPRESSION PHARMACEUTICAL TABLETS COMPRISING DPP-IV INHIBITOR CONTAINING PARTICLES AND PROCESSES FOR THEIR PREPARATION ” the patent application is a national phase of PCT/EP/2005/000400. It relates to a pharmaceutical used in the treatment for diabetes known as Vildagliptin (previously LAF237, trade names Galvus, Zomelis,) which is an oral anti-hyperglycemic agent (anti-diabetic drug) of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor class of drugs. Vildagliptin inhibits the inactivation of GLP-1[2][3] and GIP[3] by DPP-4, allowing GLP-1 and GIP to potentiate the secretion of insulin in the beta cells and suppress glucagon release by the alpha cells of the islets of Langerhans in the pancreas.

Unipharm has opposed the patent issuing and, in an intermediate proceeding, Unipharm (not represented) submitted a disclosure request for:

  1. The specific testing referred to Appendix E of a the Applicant’s expert witness.
  2. All other tests relating to all the formulations that were performed where the particle size distribution was examined.

Unipharm

Alternatively, Unipharm requests that the part of the evidence that relates to the evidence submitted in the European Opposition proceeding from Dr Davis’ statement, including Appendix E, be struck.

The patent relates to tablets that are made by direct compaction and which include DPP-IV, (s)-1-[(3-hydroxy-1-adamantyl)amino]acetyl-2-cyanopyrrolidin (Vildagliptin) in free radical form or as a salt, wherein at least 80% of the particles compressed into the tablet are in size range of 10 microns to 250 microns.

novartis

In their Statement of Case, Novartis explains that use of direct compression was not obvious to persons of the art wishing to produce vildagliptin formulations, and the distribution and size of the particles affects the character of the tablet in a manner that determines the efficacy of the formulation. The chosen distribution enables tablets to be produced by direct compaction which have high quality, acceptable stability and good physical properties.

With respect to this, Novartis’ expert witness, Dr Davis, explains in his expert opinion as follows:

“There is no prior art suggesting that tablets of vildagliptin can be made using direct compression with this size range or any size range. This particle size range and percentage of the active agent is not disclosed in the prior art. It should be noted that the particle size distribution is important to achieving good physical properties in the tablet (e.g. good hardness). Evidence filed in a technical annex for the corresponding European Patent Application No.15199440.7 (available on-line from the EPO at https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=EZQR8ZQ06757DSU&number=EP15199440&lng=en&npl=false),  comparing 88% PSD of 10-250 micron (within the claim) versus 79% PSD of 10-250 micron (outside the claim) shows that the use of a particle size distribution as claimed is important in providing directly compressed tablets with good hardness (Appendix E).”

The Expert witness related to the technical appendixes that were submitted by the Applicant to the European Patent Office which compares tablets that fall within the ambit of claim 1 to those that do not, and this is the basis of the discovery request that Unipharm submitted.

Claims of the Parties

disclosureUnipharm’s opposition to this evidence is that Professor Davis relied on test results from tests that he himself did not conduct, and they express wonderment that Novartis did not produce the drug developers to be cross-examined. In response, the Applicants claim that the disclosure process should be allowed in cases where it is proven that the documents in question are relative to the proceeding in general and to the point of contention between the parties, and in this instance the Opposer did not justify his request for disclosure of documents and did not explain how the disclosure would help clarify the question under debate.

grain size

Novartis further allege that the request for disclosure is wide and general, in that it relates to all testing and formulations made, where particle size was examined. The Applicant further asserts that Dr Davis referred to Appendix E merely to show that it was published and not as evidence that the data therein is true (!?).

As to Unipharm’s alternative request, Novartis claims that the Opposer did not base this allegation, and that we are referring to an expert opinion based on data provided to him and his relying on the publication is equivalent to any expert relying on a professional publication such as a paper in a scientific journal or a patent application in a relevant field.

file-wrapperIn response, Unipharm claims that the Applicant’s expert, Professor Davis, did not merely testify that the document was included in the file wrapper of the European Patent Application, but also reached conclusions in his expert opinion that were based thereon. As far as anything connected to the scope of the disclosure, Unipharm focuses their request and asks to receive the documents relating to the experimentation with the particle distributions and efficacy of formulations made with the specific distributions.

Unipharm claims that the documents will reveal that the tests conducted, if indeed conducted, do not provide sufficient instruction to persons of the art to produce the invention successfully without additional experimentation and thus the patent application should be rejected as not enabled under Section 12 of the Israel Patent Law 1967.

Discussion and Ruling

legal fishing expedition

There is no doubt that the Commissioner of Patents can request disclosure and access to documents in opposition proceedings. The disclosure is efficient in that it provides documents to the Patent Office that are not covered by Section 18 of the Law (Duty of Disclosure) and which can help clarify if an application is patent worthy. However, disclosure is performed in a manner to prevent the Applicant going on an illegal fishing expedition in the Applicant’s filing cabinets.

The considerations to be weighed up prior to giving a disclosure order are detailed in Opposition to 60312 Biotechnology General Corp vs. Genentech Inc and in Opposition to 143977 AstraZeneca AB vs. Unipharm ltd, and these are the stage of the opposition reached; the amount of documents and their content; the weight of the claim that the Applicants are attempting to prove with the documents asked disclosure of, their evidential weight, the possibility of the Applicant to obtain the documents themselves, and the burden it will cause the opposing party.

In these rulings it was also determined that disclosure could damage the property rights of the opposing party by forcing revelation of trade-secrets. However, the possibility of such damage being caused does not remove the authority of the Patent Office to demand such a disclosure, but obliges consideration of the legitimate property rights of the party when applying that authority.

In the opinion of Commissioner Alon Ofir, Novartis is correct that the experimental results will have no effect on the average person of the art’s ability to implement the invention. The answer to this question is found in what is revealed and not in what is not revealed in the patent application.

Nevertheless, Unipharm is correct with regard to everything related to the tests described in Appendix E, since the Applicant himself relied upon this in his statement. In this regard the Commissioner does not accept that this evidence can be considered as external evidence that their Expert Witness relied on. The document was prepared by Novartis themselves, with data they control, and their expert witness relied on it in his Opinion.

tablet-compression-machine

The particle size distribution is claimed by Novartis themselves as being a central element of their invention, and the claims of the Application itself limits the requested patent to one wherein 80% of the particles are in the 10 micron to 250 micron range. The Applicants themselves state in their Statement of Case, that the choice of particle size and distribution is what enables the fabrication of tablets of an acceptable quality by direct compression. Their Expert Witness finds support for this claim in Appendix E which compares tablets having this particle distribution with tablets that do not.

In these circumstances, one should consider the documents as relating to the central question being debated by the parties. Thus the documents relating to Appendix E are ruled relevant and Novartis are required to provide not just those relied upon but other documents summarizing experiments done with the intention of producing Appendix E, even if not included therein.

Novartis is given 30 days to produce an Affidavit of Disclosure with the relevant documents describing test results obtained in the experimentation leading to Appendix E, whether or not included in the Appendix, but relating to the hardness of tablets made from different particle distribution.

As an after-note, the Opposer is chastised for using language that does not show respect for the proceedings which was inappropriate.

No costs are awarded.

Ruling on Interim Proceeding regarding disclosure, by Commissioner Ofir Alon, 3 January 2018.

COMMENT

trawlingIn court proceedings in the United States there is wide discovery and the parties effectively go on fishing expeditions with trawlers and haul up everything and then have to wade through the bycatch.  This is not the case in Israel. One can ask for specific documents, but have to justify the request. Thus I have used the term disclosure and not discovery.

self representation

In this instance, Unipharm is not-represented, or to be more accurate Dr Zebulun Tomer is representing himself. No doubt if he runs into trouble he will call on his attorney Adi Levit to represent them. It is unlikely that the inappropriate language lost Unipharm a costs award as, since they have not used legal counsel, they are not entitled to costs anyway.

We strongly discourage industrialists to represent themselves in Opposition proceedings. The Tomers, however, have so much experience of killing pharma patent applications that there are very few lawyers that have handled so many cases.


Coffee Whitener Trademarks in the Gaza Strip

November 6, 2017

city creamerClients sometimes ask about whether or not it is worth registering trademarks in the Gaza Strip. Recently, we’ve been handling the destruction of fake plumbing goods destined to Gaza, that were stopped at the Israel Port of Ashkelon. Delivering papers in Gaza is not easy. It can, however, be done.

Qumsieh is a Jordan firm of patent attorneys that handles IP registration across the Middle East. On behalf of their client, Bilal Mohammad Al Hamwi, on 20 May 2014, Qumsieh submitted a Gaza Trademark Application for City Creamer, a coffee whitening milk substitute that comes in powder form, in class 29. The application was assigned number 18963, and published in the Official Gazette number 54 on 28 May 2015.

coffee mateSociété des Produits Nestlé S.A. (“Nestlé”), the owner of trademark “Coffee Mate” filed an opposition against Al Hamwi’s mark based on their earlier registrations for “Coffee Mate” based on the following grounds:
An alleged Similarity between “City Creamer” and “Coffee Mate” in terms of appearance and general look;
Coffee Mate is a well-known trademark worldwide;
Registration of the opposed mark will mislead the public about the origin of the products and will confuse the consumers between both products, and
Due to the above, allowing the registration of “City Creamer” contradicts local Trademark Law.

In their response, Qumsieh noted that “City Creamer” has no counterpart “mug design” mark to that of Nestlé’s mark, however Nestlé argued that this was irrelevant. Opponent dismissed as irrelevant. Qumsieh also argued that the figurative elements illustrated the differences in the imagery, which far outweighed the alleged similarities.

The Gaza Registrar ruled that the “City Creamer” mark could be registered. Apparently Nestlé appealed said decision before the Gaza Supreme Court, which affirmed the decision of the Registrar.

COMMENT

The colour schemes of the two marks are similar, but coffee is a product that is generally drunk warm and the orange-red colour implies a warm cosy feel. The term creamer, like coffee, is generic. Showing a powder additive for coffee as a spoon for adding to coffee seems to me to be descriptive, and despite the similarities which are probably not coincidental, I think that the Gazan authorities made the right decision. It is worth comparing this ruling to the Israeli rulings concerning energy drinks and the Eden Turkish Coffee.


Become Ill? Been Injured? – ? חלית? נפצעת

October 17, 2017

This ruling concerns a Trademark Opposition filed by the Israel Bar Society against an Israel trademark application submitted by the Center for Realizing Medical Rights LTD, and follows a High Court Ruling on the legality of the services provided and a court ruling on alleged Contempt of Court. The ruling is of relevance to the IP community in light of unlicensed IP practitioners (cowboys) and this is discussed by me after reporting the ruling.

Livnat Poran.jpgThe Center for Realizing Medical Rights LTD filed a trademark application for “Become Ill? Been Injured?” on 2 January 2012 in Class 36 for “consultation services relating to tax attributes; consultation services relating to rights bestowed by insurance policies; all included in class 36, and for consultation services relating to realization of rights for health deficiencies or injury; consultation services relating to realization of social security rights; all included in class 45”.

On 17 September 2014, and after the mark was refused by the Examiner, the applicant appealed and a discussion was held with the Deputy Commissioner who, after considering the claims and evidence, agreed to allow the mark to be published for opposition purposes on 1 December 2014.

Israel BarOn 19 March 2015, the Israel Bar Association filed an opposition, and on 24 April 2015, Zechuti-Experts Regarding Medical Rights LTD also filed an Opposition. In an earlier ruling, Ms Bracha ruled that the Oppositions could be combined. However, on 1 November 2015, Zechuti withdrew their opposition, and the Israel Bar continued alone.

District Court.jpgIn parallel to the Trademark Opposition, the parties also fought a battle in the Israel Courts with the Israel Bar Asssociation filing 9279/07 Israel Bar Association vs. the Center for Realizing Medical Rights LTD with the District Court (Jerusalem), claiming that the Center was invading the legal space by providing legal services. The District Court decision was appealed to the Supreme Court in 4223/12 the Center for Realizing Medical Rights LTD vs. the Israel Bar Association.

After the claims and counter claims were submitted, the Opposer submitted the District Court ruling, the Supreme Court Ruling, a further decision regarding wasting the court’s time, and a couple of Affidavits submitted by Adv. Feldman as part of the legal proceedings. The Applicant submitted an Affidavit of their CEO as evidence.

Opposer’s Claims

OppositionThe Israel Bar Association submitted that the applied-for mark lacks distinctiveness and thus contravenes Section 8(a) of the Trademark Ordinance 1972; was against the public order and thus non-registerable under section 11(5) and was misleading and encouraging unfair competition contrary to Section 11(6). They also claimed that it was descriptive of the services provided and thus non-registerable. After a hearing on the issue, the Opposition became more focused.

The Opposer acknowledged that since the Center for Realizing Medical Rights LTD had been using the mark extensively (in radio advertising campaigns) it was widely recognized and had acquired distinctiveness, but argued that since the High Court had ruled that the Center for Realizing Medical Rights LTD should cease to offer its services, two grounds for opposition remained.

  1. The Israel Bar Association considered that the Center for Realizing Medical Rights LTD was still providing legal advice and so allowing them to register the mark would be against the public order, and
  2. The Center for Realizing Medical Rights LTD was no longer offering the services it had a reputation in, and so the marks had lost their distinctiveness and so could no longer be registered.

The Opposers also claimed that the public links the services provided to Ms Livnat Poran whose name appears in the advertisements, and not to the Center for Realizing Medical Rights LTD, so considers the mark as misleading.

The Applicants Claims

applicantThe Applicant refutes the Opposer’s allegations and affirms that the marks are distinctive, not misleading and not against the public order. They accuse the Israel Bar Association of fighting a campaign to prevent them from benefiting from their trademark and for misusing the Opposition proceeding. As to the two main claims, the Center for Realizing Medical Rights LTD considers that the alegations that the mark is no longer linked to Ms Foran, and that the Center for Realizing Medical Rights LTD is continuing to offer legal services, are both widening of the grounds for the Opposition. Read the rest of this entry »


Oppostion to Smartbike Trademark

September 17, 2017

268138El-Col Electronics (Nazareth Illit) Ltd submitted a trademark application for Israel Trademark No. 268138 in class 12.

The mark is a graphical image bearing the words Smart Bike as shown.

On 7 March 2017, an opposition was filed by Smartrike Marketing Ltd and Smart Trike MNF PTE LTd under section 24a of the Trademark Ordinance 1972, and Regulation 64a of the 1940 regulations.

On 30 April 2017, the Applicants requested an extension of time for submitting their Counter-Statement of Case in Response to the Oppositions. On 20 June 2017, the Applicant submitted their claims in accordance with Section 35 and requested that the Opposer deposit a bond for covering costs.

Section 38 of the Regulations provides the Opposer with a period that ended on 20 August 2017 to submit their evidence. In addition, the Opposer should have responded to the bond request within 20 days. However, until the time of writing this Decision, it appears that the Opposer chose not to submit evidence in an Opposition they themselves initiated. Nor did they respond to the request to deposit a bond.

Consequently, under Regulation 39, Smartrike is to be considered as having abandoned the Opposition:

If the Opposer does not submit evidence, he is considered as having abandoned the Opposition unless the Commissioner rules differently.

Since the Opposer did not submit  evidence and also failed to contact the court secretary, and since she saw no justification to rule differently, Adjudicator of IP, Ms Shoshani-Caspi ruled that the opposition be considered closed, and that Israel Trademark Application No. 268138 be immediately registered.

Based on the various considerations, she ruled that the Opposer should pay costs of 1000 Shekels + VAT within 14 days.

Opposition to Israel TM Application No. 268138, Ruling by Ms Shoshani Caspi, 28 August 2017


MANDO

August 24, 2017

MANDOHalla Holding Corporation filed two Israel Trademark Applications Nos. 257747 and 257748 for the word mark MANDO and for the stylized Mando mark in classes 12 and 35.

The marks covered Horns for motor cars, Anti-theft devices for motor cars, Wheel rims for motor cars, Cycles, Parts and accessories for cycles, Cycle rims, Wheels for motorcycles, Cycle spokes, Cycle stands, Cycle frames, Cycle handle bars, Cycle hubs, Two-wheeled motor vehicles, Air bags{safety devices for automobiles}, Steering wheels for automobiles, Reversing alarms for automobiles, Parts and accessories for automobiles, Electric cars, Tandem bicycles, Mopeds, Touring bicycles, Delivery bicycles, Bicycles, Bicycle rims, Wheels for bicycles/cycles, Bicycle spokes, Frames{for luggage carriers}{for bicycles}, Bicycle stands, Bicycle frames, Bicycle handle bars, Parts and accessories for bicycles, Handlebars, Shock absorbing springs for motor cars, Spiral springs for vehicles, Shock absorbing springs for vehicles, Spring-assisted hydraulic shock absorbers for vehicles, Air springs for vehicles, Suspension Shock absorbers for vehicles, Shock absorbing Springs for vehicles, Suspension shock absorbers for vehicles, Shock absorbers for automobiles, Brakes for motor cars, Brake linings for motor cars, Brake shoes for motor cars, Brake segments for motor cars, Disk brakes for vehicles, Band brakes for vehicles, Brakes for vehicles, Brake facings for vehicles, Brake linings for vehicles, Brake shoes for vehicles, Brake systems for vehicles, Braking systems for vehicles and parts thereof, Brake segments for vehicles, Brake Shoes for vehicles, Block brakes for vehicles, Conical brakes for vehicles, Non-skid devices for vehicle tires[tyres], Braking devices for vehicles, Cycle brakes, Band brakes{for land vehicles}, Block brakes{for land vehicles}, Brake pads for automobiles, Brakes for bicycles/cycles, Bicycle brakes, Gearboxes for motor cars, Crankcases for components for motor cars{other than for engines}, Clutch mechanisms for motor cars, Torque converters for motor cars, Gears for cycles, Reduction gears for land vehicles, Gears for land vehicles, Gear boxes for land vehicles, Transmission shafts for land vehicles, Gears for vehicles, Cranks for cycles, Bearings for land vehicles, Axis for land vehicles, Couplings for land vehicles, Axle journals, Trailer couplings, Electric motors for motor cars, Motors for cycles, Alternating current[AC] motors for land vehicles, Driving motors for land vehicles, Motors for land vehicles, Servomotors for land vehicles, Motors{electric}{for land vehicles}, Direct current[DC] motors for land vehicles; All goods included in Class 12, and Import-export agencies, Administrative processing of purchase orders, Wholesale services for freezers, Retail services for hot-water heating apparatus, Wholesale services for automobiles, Commercial intermediary services in the field of bicycles, Retail services for tires[tyres] and tubes, Wholesale services for antifreeze, Retail services for liquid fuels, Commercial intermediary services in the field of parts of vehicles, Commercial intermediary services in the field of articles of vehicles, Commercial intermediary services in the field of renewal parts of vehicles, Trade agency, Trade consultancy, Trade brokerage, Offer services [trade]; All services included in Class 35

On 23 November 2015, the marks were allowed and on 29 February 2016 an Opposition was submitted by MAN Truck & Bus AG under Section 24a of the Trademark Ordinance and regulation 35 of the regulations.

On 2 May 2016, the Applicant submitted their counter statement and on 6 October 2016, the Opposer submitted their evidence. The Applicant should have submitted their counter-evidence by 6 December 2016, but on 30 November 2016 and again on 2 February 2017, they requested and received two monthly extensions, and so had to submit evidence by 5 May 2016. Despite the extensions, the Applicant did not, in fact, submit their counter-evidence.

On July 2017, and going beyond the letter of the Law, the Patent Office Court sent the Applicant the following notice:

On 6 October 2016 you were required to submit your evidence under Section 39 of the Trademark Ordinance 1940. After receiving extensions, the deadline was set for 5 May 2017. To date, you have not submitted evidence. You have 10 days to let us know if you intend to proceed with this opposition proceeding. If you fail to respond, the case will proceed to a ruling.

The Applicant failed to respond, no evidence was received and no further extensions were sought. The secretaries referred the case to Ms Shoshani Caspi for a ruling.

In light of the above, Ms Shoshani Caspi considers the Applicant as having abandoned Israel Trademark Applications Nos. 257747 and 257748, and the Opposition is accepted for all opposed goods.

Using her authority under Section 69 of the Ordinance, and considering the fact that the Opposer had to submit a statement of case and evidence, instead of the Applicant simply actively abandoning the Application at their own initiative, Ms Shoshani Caspi ruled costs of 7500 Shekels exc. VAT.

Ruling re two Israel Trademark Applications Nos. 257747 and 257748  for MANDO by Ms Shoshani Caspi, 25 July 2017.

COMMENT

Applicant could have saved themselves fees by withdrawing. Additionally, even without submitting evidence they were entitled to request that Adjudicator consider the Opposition on its merits. It is certainly possible that MAN Truck & Bus AG do not have a strong enough case to prevent the mark being registered.

 

Procrastination can be expensive.