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.

glatiramerThe 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 submied 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 concerntrated on the allegation that the publication of WO2005/041933 from 12 May 2005 anticipates the invention and negates novelty.

Claim 1 states:

“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


Adding Evidence After Filing Statement of Case in Patent Opposition Proceeding

March 22, 2018

Plasto Vak ltd (1990) ltd filed Israel Patent No. 220639 titled “Disposable One Piece Container with a Removable Tear Strip Configured for Separation of the Lid and as a Tampering Alert.” On allowance, Vacotec Packaging ltd filed an Opposition.

lateBoth sides filed their statement of case, and then, at the evidence stage, Vacotec applied to reference two additional pieces of prior art. The Opposer justified the need to add these citations by arguing that the Applicant had taken an unexpected position in their Statement of Case and had post-dated the filing date due to amendments during the prosecution.  This resulted in them doing a further search and discovering the two additional references.

The Applicant , Plasto-Vak ltd denies that there was a change between the position they took during the prosecution and that taken during the Opposition in how the claimed invention overcomes the prior art. They further deny that they agreed to the application being post-dated due to significant amendments and argue that it is too late for Vacotec to file amend their Statement of Case.  They noted that they had submitted their statement of case 5 months earlier, and this request by Vacotec was tardy. Finally, Plasto-Vak ltd denies that the new citations are relevant enough to challenge the patentability of the claimed invention.

The invention in question is a disposable one-piece container. It is claimed as follows:

A disposable one-piece container [100] comprising first and second opposing sections [110 and 120], respectively, interconnected by a folding joint [130], said first and second sections [110 and 120] are separable by pulling said second sections [110 and 120] in opposite directions; wherein said folding joint [130] comprises an axis-segment [230] formed by a folding-line [210] adjacent to the second section [120] of said container [100] and a frangible folding-line [220] adjacent to first section [110] of said container [100]; said axis-segment [230] configured as a rotation axis between said two opposing sections [110,120] enabling the closure of said container [100]; further wherein said container [100] comprises a hold-tab [150] located at the first section [110] adjacently to frangible folding-line [220] and a hold-tab [160] located at said axis-segment [230] adjacently to frangible folding-line [220] and spaced apart from said second section [120]; said hold-tabs [150 and 160] are perpendicular to each other and grippable by a user for pulling in opposite directions.

The Application was submitted on 25 june 2012 and the examination was expedited. It published for opposition purposes on 30 November 2016 and the opposition was filed on 27 February 2017.

Discussion

The Applicant is correct that in general in opposition proceedings, the Opposer cannot rely on additional citations beyond those brought in the statement of case. Consequently, submission of additional references requires correcting the statement of case. See Appeal 47387-01-11 Bromium Compounds vs. Alvemarle Corporation USA 8 August 2011 and the IL 155919 Teva vs. AstraZeneca opposition from 5 December 2011.

Amendments to the statement-of-case are allowed where they help focus the discussion on points of disagreement between the parties, where there is no justification to prohibit the correction. See Opposition to IL 187923 Pimi Aggro Cleantech ltd vs Xena international 19 May 2013:

This forum has the authority to allow corrections to the Statement of Case in instances where the amendment focuses on the issues in question and where there are no reasons not to allow the amendment. Such reasons for refusing to allow the amendment include inequitable behaviour, denying the opposing party their rights in a way that may not be compensated for with monetary award in a costs ruling for the interim action, and tardiness in requesting the amendment (see interim request to amend the statement of case in cancellation proceedings against IL 154398 in Logo Engineering Development vs. State of Israel, Ministry of Agriculture, Volcani Institute 29 April 2004. Furthermore, exercising the authority to allow such amendments depends on the stage of the proceedings reached, since patent oppositions delay and prevent the Applicant from receiving the patent.

In this instance, there does not seem to be any real reason not to allow the amendment to the statement of case and the addition of these references since the Applicant can respond to the amended statement of case. The Opposer claims that their evidence is ready and can be submitted within a week so that no real delay will result from allowing the additional material to be submitted.

Two issues that the Applicant raises deserve responding to:

  1. The delay in filing the request
  2. The relevance of the new citations

It is preferable to conduct a proper search before filing the Statement of Case, and not have to subsequently amend it at the evidence stage. The Opposer claims that the search was based on the Applicant’s position as stated in the meeting with the Examiner and this resulted in the need to conduct a further search after receiving the Applicant’s statement of case.

In the prosecution, the Applicant claimed that the main difference between the applied for invention and the prior art in that the tabs are very close to the fold line.

“In response to the office action issued on 17.02.16, the applicant respectfully submits the following:

In item 1a of the office action, the examiner states that D1 discloses the present invention. The applicant interprets that the present invention is rejected as not novel. Meanwhile, the tabs functionally directed to separating upper and lower parts of the container are located in the positions absolutely different in comparison with the prior art document. Specifically, they are adjacent to the fragile folding line while, in D1, are located distantly. This limitation is the main discriminating constructive feature regardless of a material of the container.

…”

The Opposer submits that the Applicant is now claiming that there are additional differences that claim patentability due to other features as raised in the meeting.

To show that a claimed invention is anticipated, one has to find a piece of prior art that relates to all the features of claimed.  The claims are interpreted in light of the specification, and one cannot import features not described in the specification:

The correct interpretation is that terms in the claims should be interpreted in light of the specification to give them the meaning intended by the inventor. This can be narrow or broad, so long as the interpretation is anchored in the specification and is clear to persons of the art.

However one should differentiate between the ways that one can widen and clarify the monopoly and how one understands the invention. One can refer to the specification to understand the monopoly but that not claimed is not part of the monopoly. See Appeal  345/87 Hughes Aircraft Co. vs state of Israel et al. p.d. 44(4) 45, 70.

So even where the Applicant stresses one or other element in the claims or in the rest of the application during the examination or in the statement of claims, since the claims themselves were not amended in the opposition, the Opposer knew what the claimed elements to be searched were.  (this is not to be understood as license to ignore that claimed during the patent examination).

Nevertheless, the resulting delay is not serious enough to warrant forbidding the correction of the statement of case and the addition of the two new references and allowing it will not drag out the opposition. To the extent that the Opposer could have found these new citations 10 months ago, the damage to the Applicant by the resulting tardiness may be compensated for by awarding costs to the Applicant.

As to the alleged lack of relevancy of the new citations, there is no clear a priori basis to exclude the possibility that these publications are relevant to the patentability. The Applicant submitted a 23 paragraph statement to try to show why these citations are not relevant and so it seems reasonable to accept the possibility that the citations are relevant and to relate to them substantively in the Opposition proceedings instead of to prevent their being submitted.

In light of the above, Ms Jacqueline Bracha allows the statement of case to be amended to relate to the two additional citations as follows:

  1. The corrected statement of case and additional evidence must be filed within 7 days
  2. The applicant will file their statement of case and evidence within the following three months as per section 59(b) of the Regulations
  3. The Opposer will pay 5000 Shekels including VAT costs to the Applicant

 Re IL 220639 to Plasto Vak ltd (1990) ltd; Interim ruling by Ms Bracha on addition of Evidence not referenced in Statement of Case, 21 February 2018


NOCTUROL

December 20, 2017

NocturolWellesley Pharmaceuticals LLC submitted Israel Trademark Application No. 284926 for NOCTUROL; a Pharmaceutical preparations for reducing frequency of urination in Class 5.

NocturnoUnipharm, a large Israeli generic drug manufacturer and distributor that sells the mild hypnotic Zopiclone as a treatment for insomnia under the brand-name NOCTURNO opposed the mark on 10 September 2017.

On 11 September 2017, the Court of the Israel Patent & Trademark Office gave Wellesley Pharmaceuticals two months to file a counter-statement of case.

The deadline of 11 November 2017 passed without a  a counter-statement of case being filed, and on 20 November 2017, Unipharm requested that their Opposition be accepted and the application refused.

Section 24(v) of the Trademark Ordinance states:

If the Applicant does not submit such a response, it is as if they have abandoned their mark.

The Opposition to Israel Trademark Application No. 284926 is thus accepted.

In general, the prevailing party is entitled to costs. The considerations are the time involved, complexity, work done, equitable behavior, etc. Under her Authority given in Section 69, the Adjudicator, Ms Yaara Shoshani Caspi, ruled costs of 2000 Shekels including VAT.

COMMENT

Notably, the director of Unipharm, Dr Zebulun Tomer (who has more experience in patent oppositions than any mere lawyer or patent attorney) filed the trademark Opposition himself, without involving their legal counsel Adi Levit.

As Unipharm did not use legal counsel, they are not entitled to costs. This is clear from Patent Oppositions where they prevailed in similar circumstances. The cost ruling was given without sides requesting costs and is appealable to the District Court. However, the I would be surprised if Wellesley contests it.


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.