Cancelling a Trademark – K Washer

August 8, 2018

This is an interim ruling regarding whether a sole distributor in Israel of trademarked goods has standing to request cancellation of a mark that is confusingly similar to the trademark covering the goods they distribute, and under what conditions can the owner of the trademark that is the basis of the challenge join the proceeding? Do they need to post a bond for costs? Does the counter-statement of case need substantive amendment and can the owner of the challenged mark requests costs for so doing?

KWASHER

Kärcher is a French company that has requested the cancellation of Israel Trademark No. 258749 to B.M. Peled-Technical Supplies LTD for the stylized “K-Washer” mark shown.

The basis for the cancellation request is that the K-Washer mark is confusingly similar to the Kärcher Mark.

Karcher

The request for cancellation was submitted by Dan Sheldon Ltd, which claimed to be the sole distributors of Kärcher in Israel. The Applicant for cancellation informed Kärcher about the issue and that they intended taking steps against the mark holder.

A letter of consent and a POA from Kärcher was attached to the cancellation request. In the letter of consent, Kärcher noted that they were not a party in the cancellation request but they agree to it occurring. In the POA it was emphasized that Dan Sheldon is the sole distributor of Kärcher products in Israel and that Kärcher delegates the right to take legal steps against K-Washer.

In response to the cancellation request, the trademark owner claimed that the party requesting cancellation of the mark had no connection to the registered Kärcher mark and no rights in the mark. In particular, the mark owner claimed that Sheldon had no standing and no legitimate interest that could serve as a basis for the cancellation request. Furthermore, he argued that the letter delegating authority showed that Kärcher had no interest in defending their mark in Israel.

In counter-response, to remove any doubt, Kärcher requested to be a party to the cancellation proceeding.

The cancellation request was submitted together with evidence from the requesters for cancellation and after the parties had submitted their statements of case. The mark owner has not yet submitted his evidence, and has already received an extension of time to do so.

The claims of the parties

Kärcher claims that their joining the cancellation request is essentially the same as if they had been a party from the beginning. It would not create damage, delay or affect the proceeding that has already started in any way, and their joining the proceeding does not in any way change the cancellation request.

Kärcher explained that their joining is merely a precaution to avoid the mark holder’s allegation that they have no interest in this proceeding, or in an infringement proceeding, Appeal 38680-11-17 in the District Court.

The mark holder counter claims that the fact that Kärcher has requested to join the proceeding is not a reason for them to do so, and Kärcher does not claim to be a necessary party in the proceeding. Furthermore, the mark holder notes that Kärcher has not explained how they would be hurt if their request to join the proceeding is refused, and the only reason why they requested to join the proceeding is that the respondent alleged that the party requesting cancellation has no rights in Kärcher’s mark and thus cannot themselves be a party to the proceeding.

Discussion and Ruling

First the Commissioner, Ofer Alon notes that he doesn’t think that the cancellation proceeding submitted by Dan Sheldon was submitted without right of standing. Section 38 of the Trademark Ordinance 1972 states that:

38.(a) Subject to the provisions of this Ordinance, any person aggrieved by the non-insertion or omission from the Register without sufficient cause, or by any entry wrongly remaining on the Register, or by any error or defect in any entry in the Register, may make application in the prescribed manner to the Supreme Court or may, at his option, make such application in the first instance to the Registrar.

The term any person aggrieved has been broadly interpreted, see Seligsohn “Trademark and Related Laws, 1973, page 105 and Appeal 94/05 The Vineyards of Rishon L’Zion and Zichron Yaakov Cooperative vs. The Vineyard Company ltd. P.d. 61(3), 350 (2006) and paragraphs 9 and 10.

The term “who is aggrieved” has been explained very liberally in the case-law, and includes all business competitors who lose out by a competitor benefitting from a trademark that he does not have rights to. This explanation is based on the explanation of the term Person Aggrieved in the English Law.

This was cited in Bagatz Klil vs. Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, p.d. 42(1) 309 on pages 316 and 317 where the court related to the fact that the mandatory authority amended the term “person interested” that appeared in the original law to “party aggrieved” in  the 1938 Ordinance, and the term remained broad as explained above.

To demonstrate the trend to explain the term broadly, it is noted that in the new UK Trademark Law 1994, the term “person aggrieved” is also deleted, and anyone can request cancellation of a mark.

If there is a risk of misleading the public to think that K-Washer is connected to Kärcher, then Sheldon, who is Kärcher’s distributor in Israel, is within the ambit of a ‘person aggrieved’ and has the right to request cancellation of the mark.

It is noted that the mark owner simultaneously claims that there is no point adding Kärcher to the proceeding, and that only Kärcher has the right to request cancellation, implying that there is indeed a point in allowing him to join the proceeding.

It seems that the parties concur that Kärcher has the right to request cancellation of the mark, since they are also ‘aggrieved” by it being registered (should it be determined that there is indeed a danger of misleading as to the source of the goods).Consequently, if we were to refuse to allow them to join this proceeding, they could simply file a separate request to cancel the mark(which logically would be combined with this proceeding), and this justifies allowing them to join this proceeding at this time.

Regulation 72 of the Trademark Regulations 1940 lays out the conditions for a third-party to join a cancellation or correction proceeding for an issued trademark that are set out in regulation 70:

  1. Any person other than the registered owner, claiming a benefit in a registered trade mark in respect of which an application was made under clause 67, may apply to the Registrar, using the prescribed form, to permit it to intervene in the matter, and the Registrar may refuse or accede to the granting of permission for such, after hearing the parties in respect of the matter, on such terms as the Registrar may see fit. Prior to dealing with such application in whatever manner, the Registrar may demand that the applicant give an undertaking to pay the Registrar’s expenses incurred in deciding to the benefit of one of the parties under the circumstances.

The purpose for Regulation 72 is to allow third parties that claim a benefit in the registered mark, to have their day before the Commissioner. As then Commissioner Asa Kling stated, this is the right to a substantive hearing (see registered Israel trademark no. 216,916 (request to include a third-party) Danny Argon vs. Strauss Culture Factories ltd, 1 November 2012:

Where the third party claims apparent rights to a mark and excluding him from the proceeding would have negative consequences, it seems appropriate to include him in the proceedings as it seems improper to prevent him for stating his case.

As stated above, the cancellation proceedings is based on claims of misleading and unfair competition with respect to Kärcher products.so it seems appropriate to allow Kärcher to join the proceeding, and this accords with Regulation 72. Thus Commissioner Alon orders that Kärcher can join the proceeding as a third-party.

The trademark owner requested on 2 July 2018, that should Kärcher be allowed to join the proceeding, a procedural regime should be introduced wherein amended statements of case and amended evidence be resubmitted in consequence of them being added. Furthermore, the mark owner requests that should Kärcher be allowed to join the case, that they be required to deposit a bond to cover the mark owners costs and should bear the costs of the mark owner correcting their statement of case.

The parties requesting cancellation object to this procedural regime and contend that adding Kärcher does not require making substantive changes to the statement of case, and adding Kärcher does not require moving from where the case has got to and does not introduce new claims. As to requiring Kärcher to deposit a bond, they note that Kärcher is a company with a yearly turnover of billions of dollars and in the court proceedings Kärcher was added as a plaintiff without preconditions.

With respect to the posting of a bond, the mark owner did not provide justification for this request. However, the request to add Kärcher as a plaintiff was also not submitted with justifications for them not to post a bond other than their alleged turnover which was also not supported by any evidence.

In the Commissioner’s ruling of 19 June 2018, the time frame for the mark owner to submit evidence was set to 30 days after the requester for cancellation submit their evidence in a discovery procedure that the Commissioner initiated. It appears from the documents before him, that the requested documents were transferred to the mark owner on 26 June 2018, so the mark owner has until 26 July 2018 to submit their evidence.

In light of the above, the Commissioner rules as follows:

  1. The statement of case of the requester for cancellation of the mark shall be amended only by adding Kärcher as a co-plaintiff. The mark owner will have 21 days to amend their counter-statement of case from the date of this ruling.
  2. The challenger can amend their evidence by adding Kärcher as a plaintiff, and can add any new claims to their statement of case that result from this addition. The additional evidence should be submitted within 30 days of the amended counter-statement of case of the mark owner.
  3. The mark owner should submit their evidence within 30 days of the submission of the amended evidence by the original and the additional challenger. In accordance with Regulation 40 of the trademark regulations, the original requester for cancellation and the additional party will be able to submit their counter-evidence in accordance with the schedule laid out in the regulation.
  4. Despite allowing the addition of a second party to the challenge, no costs will be awarded for any need to amend the statement-of-case, or other reason.
  5. In light of the above, at this stage, the Commissioner does not see it appropriate to require Kärcher to post a bond to cover costs of the mark owner, should they prevail. If however, the mark owner considers it appropriate to require the challengers to post a bond, they can submit a detailed request and it will be considered on its merits.

Interim Ruling in Cancellation Proceeding of Israel Trademark No. 258749 “K-Washer” by Ofer Alon, 19 July 2018.


Requesting Enlargement of A Deposit of Costs

January 8, 2017

The Krasnyi Octybar and Rot Front Joint Stock Companies own four Israel trademarks: 184179, 182758, 182759 and 182763. Each covering a long list of goods in class 30, including such things as for waffles; confectionery for decorating Christmas trees; cakes; pastries; peanut confectionery; almond confectionery; pasty; cocoa; cocoa products; caramels [candy]; sweetmeats [candy]; liquorice [confectionery]; peppermint sweets; coffee; crackers; meat pies; farinaceous foods; candy for food; fruit jellies; marzipan; custard; honey; ice cream; sherbets [ices]; muesli; mint for confectionery; cocoa beverages with milk and coffee beverages with milk; coffee-based beverages, tea-based beverage, chocolate beverages with milk, chocolate-based beverages, cocoa-based beverages; lozenges; petits fours [cakes]; biscuits; pies; fondants; pralines; gingerbread; chewing gum, not for medical purposes; sugar; cake paste; confectionery; rusks; sandwiches; almond paste; tarts; cakes (Edible decorations for-); halvah; bread; tea.

Five companies including the Roshen Confectionery Corporation,  Dealer B&D International Ltd, Kjarkov Biscuit Factory, Dolina Group Ltd and Latfood Ltd have filed cancellation requests against these marks.

The marks owners have requested that the sum that the challengers are required to post as a guarantee against legal costs in the event that the mark owners prevail be increased by a further 130,000 Shekels, or by whatever sum the commissioner sees fit. The request was submitted together with 90 pages of appendices and a copy of an Affidavit from the legal counsel of the mother company, however the original Affidavit was not submitted. The challengers opposed the request to increase the guarantee. A hearing has been set for the 17th and 18th of January for cross-examining the various witnesses.

The background to the request for guarantees is two requests for cancellation of the marks. Roshen Confectionery Corporation and  Dealer B&D International Ltd have requested the cancellation of 184179, 182758 and 182759 trademarks, and the Kjarkov Biscuit Factory, Dolina Group Ltd and Latfood Ltd have requested cancellation of the 182763 mark.

Following requests for guarantees that were filed in March 2015, the Adjudicator of IP Ms Yaara Shshani Caspi ruled on 21 June 2015 as follows:

In light of the above, and considering all the circumstances of this case and the general considerations used to determine the magnitude of the appropriate deposit, the first two challengers are to jointly deposit 75,000 Shekels and the second group of three challengers are also to jointly deposit 75,000 Shekels, and this should be done within 21 days.

The present request includes suspension of the proceedings until the deposit is increased.

The Parties’ Allegations

The mark holder claims that increasing the deposit is required because following the original decision there have been changes in circumstances that warrant increasing the deposit. These new circumstances include the expectation of long and complex proceedings and a number of cross-examinations. Furthermore, the case is complex and it transpires that the costs are expected to be higher than originally anticipated. The additional costs are incurred by the two groups of challengers retaining separate counsel and making unnecessary requests. A further claim is that it was not previous clear but now is transparently so, that there will be a massive amount of evidence and documents and a hearing that will be conducted largely in Russian, requiring simultaneous translation. The mark owners nevertheless reiterate their opinion that the likelihood of challengers prevailing and the marks being cancelled are very slim. The amount of the deposit, standing at 150,000 Shekels, is too low and not proportional to the costs that will be requested if the cancellation attempts fail and so this is a classic example of where increasing the deposit is warranted.

Both group of challengers consider the request to increase the deposit should be refused since the ‘new circumstances’ were already fairly obvious when the original request for costs was made. The second group of challengers considers this to be a vacuous request filed in bad faith simply to stretch out the proceedings.

Ruling

Ms Yaara shoshani Caspi did not consider that the circumstances had changed since the original request for a deposit was ruled on. For example, where there are five parties challenging two groups of marks it is not unpredictable that there will be lots of witnesses to cross-examine. Since the challengers are Russian companies, it was always expected that their witnesses would testify in Russian and simultaneous translation would be needed, as is the fact that there are two groups of challengers. The massive amount of evidence was also expected and Ms Shoshani Caspi considered that these grounds were all considered by her in her original ruling regarding the size of an appropriate deposit.

With regard to the likelihood of the challenges prevailing and the marks being cancelled, there is no way to consider the likelihood or otherwise of the challenges be successful at this stage since the witnesses have not been heard and have not yet been cross-examined. At least this is the theoretical state of affairs. Since the challenges are on the basis of inequitable behaviour in the original filings, there is a high level of proof that the challengers will be required to submit to establish their case since they will have to positively show that many years ago the mark holders intentionally appropriated marks that were not theirs.

Nevertheless, the fact that the challengers have a difficult task ahead is not justification to increase the deposit that they have already placed. There are no unexpected circumstances not considered in the original ruling considering the size of the deposit.

The request to increase the deposit is refused. However, Ms Shoshani Caspi does not see the request as indicative of inequitable behaviour designed to make the trademark cancellation proceedings unnecessarily complicated. that said, the mark owners should nevertheless pay costs to the challengers for requiring them to respond to this request. The mark owners will therefore may 1500 Shekels to the first group of challengers and a further 750 Shekels to the second group and will do so by 15 January 2016 or interest will incur.

In cancellation proceedings concerning 184179, 182758, 182759 and 182763 trademarks, Ruling on increasing size of deposit by Ms Yaara Shoshani Caspi, 28 December 2016.


Costs Where the Agent of Record is Slow but Sure

November 14, 2016

tortoise

On 17 February 2016, Talia Bio-Cosmetics LTD filed Israel Trademark Application No. 282845 for the word Talia covering soaps, ethereal oils and cosmetics in class 3. We assume that the term ethereal oils means essential oils, i.e. oils having a low vapour pressure that are easily vapourized.

The mark was allowed, and then, on 29 May 2016, ARIANDA THALIA SODI MIRANDA, represented by Colb, filed an Opposition.

Talia Bio-Cosmetics LTD engaged Adv. Moshe Goldberg to represent them, and, on 10 July 2016, the Opposition was withdrawn. Then Adv. Goldberg submitted a request for 10,200 NIS costs for 17 hours work spent on the Opposition. The cost request was supported by a detailed list of work done.

The Applicant claimed that the costs requested were exorbitant and unrealistic since the Opposition was withdrawn so early. The Applicant further noted that the request was not accompanied by an Affidavit and alleged that it was insufficiently detailed.

The Deputy Commissioner Ms Jacqueline Bracha noted that Section 69 of the Trademark Ordinance 1972 stated that costs were at the discretion of the Patent Office :

In any hearing before the Commissioner, he is authorized to award the party costs that he considers realistic.

In this instance, the Opposer, by withdrawing the Oppostion, is considered as having lost the proceeding and is obliged to pay costs. See Supreme Court Ruling 891/05 Tnuva Cooperative for Marketing Israeli Produce vs. The Authority for Granting export Licences of the Department of Trade and Industry p.d 60(1) 600 (30 June 2005).

As a matter of principle and as a starting position, the prevailing party is entitled to real costs, i.e. the costs that he has had to lay out. However, this is only the starting position. It is not the end of the matter, since the one sitting in judgement should examiner the costs requested and decide if they are reasonable, proportional and essential,when considering the whole picture. The Attorney’s fees are a relevant but not the only relevant consideration.

The Applicant has requested a rather large costs of 10,700 Shekels for 17 hours work spent on the file. In practice, the Opposer filed an Opposition and then requested an extension for submitting the Statement of Case. The Applicant requested that a bond be paid and also responded to the request for an extension. The Applicant never filed any substantive response since the Opposition proceeding was closed a mere week after it was opened.

To the extent that costs are extreme, there is a greater burden of proof on the Applicant to justify them. See Opposition to Patent Application No. 153109 Unipharm vs. Mercke Sharpe & Dohme 29 March 2011.

Ms Bracha considered the statement of costs sufficiently detailed but nevertheless considered it unreasonable when considering the stage of the proceeding reached, where no statement of case and no evidence had been filed. Consequently she ruled costs of 2000 Shekels to be paid within 21 days.


KANEX – Cancelling a Trademark and Posting a Bond to Cover Costs

October 31, 2016

KANEX is a trademark owned by Chen Writing Instruments Ltd. It covers “Staplers, paper-punches, staple-pins, lever arc mechanism and all other office requisites (other than furniture) all being articles of stationary included in class 16.

Kanin India (Pvt) Ltd. filed a cancellation proceedings under section 39 of the Trademark Ordinance 1972. Both sides have submitted their evidence but the hearing which is typically the next stage of cancellation proceedings has not yet occurred.

Now both sides have filed interim requests. Kanin India have requested permission to file supplementary evidence, and Chen Writing Instruments have requested that Kanin India post a bond to cover legal costs should Kanin lose the cancellation proceedings.

Filing Additional Evidence

The general course of cancellation proceedings is set out in the 1940 regulations. Kanin India’s request to submit additional evidence at this stage contravenes the general order of things.

The additional evidence includes two Israel court rulings:

  • 2430/98 Kangaroo Industries Regd. vs. Guard Writing Instruments (1995) LTD.  (30 July 2007)
  • 18116/02 Guard Writing Instruments (1995) LTD.  vs. Chen Writing Instruments LTD (11 Sep 2007).
  • Three affidavits from Ehud Berman, manager and owner of Guard Writing Instruments (1995) LTD. that are dated from 1998, 2004 and 2016.
  • Copies of letters from 1998 sent by Kanin India (Pvt) Ltd., which were attached to Mr Berman’s affidavit from 30 July 1998.
  • Copies of additional letters sent by Kanin India (Pvt) Ltd in 1999 that allegedly mention the trademark

The request to submit the additional evidence was supported by an affidavit signed by Adv. Rami Artman, Kanin India (Pvt) Ltd’s legal counsel, testifying that the evidence only reached him after he had made the original submission of evidence, and that he could not have obtained evidence that he was unaware about.

In the name of Kanin India (Pvt) Ltd., Adv Artman argued that the additional evidence is relevant to rights in the marks and due to their importance, their late submission should be allowed. As the hearing had not yet occurred, there was no reason not to allow their inclusion.

Chen Writing Instruments Ltd. argued that Adv Artman’s affidavit was insufficient and that the evidence was irrelevant to the cancellation proceeding. Furthermore, the evidence was known to the applicants of cancellation when the first round fo evidence was submitted, and since they did not present it at that stage, they were estoppled from submitting it at this later time. If this additional evidence is allowed, it will cause additional and significant expense to Chen Writing Instruments Ltd., and thus Chen Writing Instruments Ltd were entitled to compensation for this damage.

DISCUSSION

As a general rule, evidence is preferably submitted in one lot. (See 2813-07 Unipharm vs. Merck & Co Inc. Section 22 (30 January 2013); See also 579/90 Rozin vs. Bin-Nun p.d. 46(3) 738 (1992) section 8, and also Zusman Civil Evidence Procedures 1995 (509-510).

Nevertheless, the case-law provides considerations that justify later submissions of evidence, particularly the relevance of the submission and the importance of allowing substantive justice to occur. See 1297/011 Michaelovich vs. Clal Insurance ltd. p.d. 55 (4) 577 (2001) 579-580; the stage of the proceedings reached; could the party have brought the evidence at an earlier stage; why the evidence submitted earlier (see Rozin section 8), and whether the opposing party can explain away or contradict the further evidence (391/80 Leserson vs. Workers Residences Ltd. p.d. 38(2) 237 (1984) section 3).

In addition to these considerations, the Commissioner of trademarks has wide discretion to deviate from formal requirements and to accept additional evidence since Regulation 41 grants the Commissioner discretion to deviate from the procedures:

Neither side will add evidence in cases before the Commissioner, however the Commissioner may, at any time allow additional evidence to be submitted as he sits fit, and to adjust costs accordingly.

The commissioner may rely on any of the considerations that courts have allowed, but additionally, may rely on regulation 41 because of the public good inherent in the register. See, for example. competing marks 242735 and 24250 Razer (asia Pacific) PTE Ltd vs Razor USA LLC (14 October 2014), and cancellation proceeding 114996 Hosan Marketing (USA) Ltd vs. Nobel Fashion (1981) Ltd (24 April 2006).

It appears from Mr Berman’s affidavit from 1998, that the Application for cancellation is justified as there was inequitable behaviour in the filing of the Application. However, the way in which this evidence was submitted makes it problematic to allow its inclusion.

It appears from Mr Berman’s affidavit that only part of the evidence available was submitted by the Opposers, and no evidence was submitted as to why the rest of the evidence was not also mae available. The papers were filed in one submission without explanation or organization, and without an affidavit explaining the submission. True, the Agent for the Applicant submitted an affidavit explaining that he had only now learned about the evidence. However, the client did not submit an affidavit or statement explaining the significance of the evidence or why it was not submitted earlier. The commissioner is not convinced that he should accept evidence on the basis of the attorney’s submission. One has to allow the mark owner to cross-examine the challenger and the agent of record cannot represent his client if he himself is signed on an affidavit. this seems to contravene section 36 of the Rules of Ethics for Attorneys 1968 which allow the attorney to testify to technical procedural issues but not to substantive matters. See the request to cancel 187385 aned 187386 Gemological Institute of America and opposition to 200701 and 200702 Gemology Headquarters International (28 May 2012).

Although the commissioner has great flexibility and discretion to allow additional evidence to be submitted, he can also use this discretion to ignore evidence under Section 80 of the Regulations. In this instance, there is no apparent justification to allow late submission of evidence and the Applicant hasn’t even made a case to justify where such late submission should be allowed.

There is something in the trademark owner’s complaint that the additional evidence is being submitted late in the proceedings without due justification.

When weighing up the integrity fo the register against the additional work required to take into account mountains of evidence submitted without proper labeling in an appropriate manner and at an innappropriate stage, the Commissioner ruled that the District Court ruling and the Affidavits of Mr Berman may be submitted together with their appendices within 30 days. The additional material that was not submitted with an affidavit may not be submitted as the trademark owner cannot cross-examine on them.

The Request to Place a Bond for Costs

The mark holder has asked for the Applicant for cancellation to post a bond of not less than 100,000 Shekels to cover legal costs, expenses and damages should the cancellation action be rejected.  The Request is based on section 353a of the Company Law 1999 and section 519 of the Civil Law procedures 1984. Furthermore, the mark owner has requested that the proceedings be stayed until such a bond is posted.

The mark holder considers the request justified since the Applicant for cancellation is a foreign limited liability company (an Indian company) without assets in Israel. Furthermore, the Applicant has not filed any evidence of their financial state. The trademark owner contends that the Applicant is acting in bad faith, is making the proceeding unneccessary complicated by submitting late evidence with a low chance of prevailing, requiring them to post a bond is justified.

To support the request for a bond, an Affidavit from Mr Isaac Neiman, the CEO of the mark holder was submitted together with the request.

The Applicant for cancellation claims that the mark owner’s request to stay proceedings is simply  a ploy to allow them to continue using the mark whilst preventing the Applicant from importing products into Israel.

The Applicant considers the likelihood of the cancellation request being allowed as reasonable, and considers the size of the bond requested to be disproportionate and inappropriate for an Indian company.

Section 353a states:

If an Israeli or foreign limited company files a legal proceeding in an Israel Court, the court is allowed, at defendant’s request, to require the applicant to post a bond to cover legal expenses in the event of the action being dismissed, and can stay proceedings until such a bond is deposited, unless the court is convinced that the Applicant has the resources to pay its bills.

The parties do not disagree that the commissioner can request such a bond deposited. Such bonds have been placed from time to time, see Israel Trademark No. 242256 East and West Stores Ltd. vs. East and West Importers Ltd. (27 August 2012); The Mooi cases Densher vs. Mewah Brands  and Oui Gruppe GmbH & Co. vs. Mis El High Fashion (1992) Ltd. The guidelines for such cases are given in Appeal 10376/07 LN computerized engineering vs. Bank HaPoalim (2009) paragraph 13:

From that stated above, the court reviewing a request for bail to be posted by a plaintiff who is a company to ensure that costs are covered, should first of all consider the financial status of the applicant. This is the first clause in the law, but this does not stop here. If the court is not satisfied that the plaintiff can pay his fees should the defendant prevail, the court should consider whether placing bail is appropriate or not. This stage requires considering the legal rights of  the parties and the status of the parties. The general situation is that a bond is required, and a decision not to require one is an exception to the general state of affairs.

See Appeal 10905/07 Naot Oasis Hotels ltd/ et al. vs. Zisser (13 July 2007, 23 May 2011).

Furthermore, in LN Engineering it was ruled that one does not consider the likelihood of prevailing unless the case is very clear-cut.

In other words – if, for example, the chances of prevailing are high, it may be appropriate not to request a bond but there are two points: (a) the proof is on the plaintiff to show that their case is very good, and (b) it is generally inappropriate to enter a protracted analysis of the chances of prevailing and these should only be considered if they are very good or very poor.

Since the general position is that bonds should be required and the Applicant is a foreign limited company without Israeli assets, the Applicant has failed to to provide justification for NOT requiring them to post a bond. No evidence was submitted about the companies’ finances.

As to the specifics of the case, the onus is on the applicant to show that he should NOT place a bond, and in this instance, one notes that the Applicant made the strange move of late submission of evidence, and was also responsible for various delays and extensions at various stages. Nevertheless, at this stage, it does not seem appropriate to look into the merits of the case. In conclusion, the Applicant has not persuasively argued that they should not post bail.

In LN Engineering, it was ruled that bail should be proportionate to expected costs if the Applicant loses:

Once the second inquiry is concluded with a conclusion that the Applicant should indeed post bail, the third inquiry commences, to ascertain the appropriate bond that is proportionate and balances the various interests. Paragraph 13 here.

The mark holder has asked for a bond to be set at 100,000 Shekels, and notes that actual costs so far have been 50,000 Shekels, but one has to note the large additional submission of evidence that has now been made.

Consequently, the Applicant has to deposit a personal promissory note for the full amount requested within 30 days for the case to move forwards.

CONCLUSION

The District Court ruling and its appendices may be submitted. Mr Berman’s statement and its appendices may be submitted, but no further evidence will be allowed.

The Applicant will personally guarantee payment of costs of  100,000 Shekels should the cancellation proceedings prevail, and in consequence of this late submission, the applicant will pay 8000 Shekels legal fees within 30 days.

Interim Ruling by Asa Kling re cancellation of 130585 (KANEX), 28 September 2016.

COMMENT

This is a cancellation proceeding. There is nothing to stop the Applicant from filing a second cancellation proceeding immediately on this one being rejected.  No trademark is ever inviolate. It is therefore appropriate to review all the evidence available and to rule on substance not on formalities. It therefore seems clear that evidence should be allowed to be submitted at any stage. However, if the stage is not the correct one, costs should be awarded against the late submitter. Similarly, evidence submitted without a proper affidavit or in a format not acceptable, should be objected to, giving the submitter an opportunity to correct the defects, and awarding costs to the opposing party.


I love Sixty Seven Mark Challenged – Bond set at 3 1/2 % of that Requested

January 5, 2015

67

Chaim Gavriel and Daniel Milstein own Israel trademark No. 199199.  The mark in question is a word mark “I LOVE SIXTY SEVEN” and covers clothing, footwear, headgear; included in class 25.

Aymerich Inver, S.L. filed to have the mark canceled, and the mark owners requested that a bond of 200,000 Shekels be posted to cover legal fees in the event of the cancelation proceeding failing. The request was justified by noting that Aymerich is a limited company without assets in Israel, making collection of any award difficult. There is no way of knowing whether the company is on a sound financial footing. Aymerich responded by claiming that the company was financially sound, would have no difficulty in covering any costs awarded against it, and the mark holders had provided no evidence to the contrary.

Section 353a of the Company Law authorizes the courts to require that a bond is paid by foreign litigants and limited companies, and places the onus on the litigant to show that they have the financial resources. In 10905/07 Naot Oasis Hotels vs. Zisser, Judge Gronis (now head of the Supreme Court) explained that the underlining logic is to ensure that foreign litigants can’t file suit and then escape the consequences of losing. In Appeal 10376/07 L.N. Handasa vs. Bank HaPoalim, the three stages of determining liquidity in such cases is clarified. It is not enough to determine the financial state of the company, but also the chances of success in the litigation should be determined as should an appropriate bond in the specific circumstances.

Since the company filed suit in this case, the onus is on them to prove that they have sufficient finances to pay costs. The mere fact that there are no assets in Israel is insufficient to indicate a lack assets per se, but it is sufficient to indicate that the defendant, if successful, is unlikely to see their costs refunded. That is, after all, the logic behind requiring a bond from foreign plaintiffs.  That said, the bond should be related to the likelihood of success and to the expected costs in the event of failure. The Adjudicator of Intellectual Property, Ms Yaara Shoshani Caspi ruled that a bond of 7000 Shekels was appropriate in this instance.


Posting costs in trademark opposition

February 6, 2014

Stern 3 stars and  four stats

It is not unknown for parties in contentious proceedings in general, and opponents in trademark oppositions in particular, to disappear when the proceeding has run its course.

The winning party may be awarded significant costs, but may not be able to collect. In my experience, representing counsel may be left with outstanding bills as well.

Y Stern, Diamond Design LTD., an Israeli company filed a cancellation procedure against four trademarks owned by H Stern Comercio e Industria S.A. a Brazilian Jewelry company that has a large presence in Israel.

The marks in question are TM 114030 and 114031 which are a cluster of three pentagram stars and a row of four pentagram stars respectively, 170325 (not shown in database for some reason) and 173999 STERN STAR. The marks are all for class 14.

H Stern Comercio e Industria S.A. claims that the initial stages of the rebuttal of the cancellation procedure cost them some NIS 80,000, and from an financial investigation they had concluded that in the event of them winning the case, they would not be able to collect from Y Stern, Diamond Design LTD.

Y Stern, Diamond Design LTD., argued that the so-called investigation was a minor debt owed to the Registrar of Companies that had since been taken care of. They went on to argue that not only had the Brazilian company failed to show that there was a financial problem, but they considered themselves in a good position to win in the main case, so would not have to pay costs anyway.

Y Stern, Diamond Design LTD. supplied financial information to show that their financial situation was stable and reasonable and asked that this information be considered confidential and not for publication.

In his ruling, the Deputy Commissioner, Ms Jacqueline Bracha noted that under Section 353a of the Companies Law, the courts were able to impose a bond of this nature, and previous patent office decisions such as 69909 (Bambino) had ruled that this was permissible. Furthermore, he noted that as a point of Law, neither side challenged that the patent office had the authority.

Ms Bracha went on to note that filing a bond if requested was standard and that not requiring a bond to be deposited if requested, was actually the exception.

In the circumstances, the question to be considered is whether the plaintiff had demonstrated the ability to pay costs should they lose. In this regard, he did not think the evidence to the contrary was sufficient. The company had managed to pay two liens against them and to pay off their debt to the company register and previous costs awarded against them in a separate case. However, their bank balance was in the red and previous creditors had had to initiate legal proceedings to collect debt, which did not auger well.

That said, Ms Bracha rejected the assertion that the cost to date was 80,000 Shekels and that it could reach 200,000 Shekels and she ruled that the plaintiff should deposit a bond of 20,000 Shekels within 14 days.

Decision Jacqueline Bracha in Stern vs. Stern 30 December 2013