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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


August 11, 2017

256843David Ibgy, who markets fashion goods, submitted Israel Trademark Number 256843 on 26 June 2013 for clothing under Section 25. The mark was allowed on 17 November 2014 and published for opposition purposes.

The mark is shown alongside.


82802On 27 February 2017, Lifestyle Equities CV opposed the mark. Lifestyle Equities CV is a Dutch company that has several Israeli distributors that sell clothing under their IL 82802 mark, which was registered in November 1995 in category 25 for clothing, shoes and head coverings. Their mark is shown alongside:


The Opposer’s Claims

The Opposer claims that their mark was developed in Los Angeles, USA, in 1982 as a mark that implies quality. Goods were sold under the mark in known chain stores in Israel, such as HaMashbir and Keds Kids, Errocca and in other fashion stores across the country.

The Opposer claims that the dominant element is the horse and rider and so the applied for mark is similar enough to their registered mark that it could be misleading and so is not registerable under Sections 11(6), 11(9) and 11(13) of the Trademark Ordinance.

To strengthen this contention, the Opposer notes that both they and the applicant use the mark for off-the-shelf clothing and consumers have inaccurate recall and so the marks are visually confusingly similar.

The Opposer notes that the two marks are directed to the same goods and that clothing with the marks are sold by the Applicant via similar distribution channels to those used by the Opposer, and the target clientele in both cases is the Israeli clothing and fashion-wearing public.

The Opposer alleges that the two marks share a similar conceptual idea that will confuse the public into thinking that the Applicant’s goods are supplied by the Opposer. Both marks have a side view of a rampant horse mounted by a polo player with a raised mallet within a ring of circles. The Opposer considers the relative proportions between the horse and the circular frame as being almost the same in the two cases.

Furthermore, Opposer alleges that due to their intensive use in Israel and the world, their mark has a reputation and may even be considered as being a well-known mark as defined in the ordinance. Due to the well-known nature of the mark, the likelihood for the public being mislead is increased.

The Opposer [Applicant in ruling, but this is a mistake – MF] therefore concludes that the situation may occur wherein the public will purchase the Applicant’s goods thinking them as being provided by the opposer or somehow connected with the Opposer, and so the pending mark is disqualified from registration by Sections 11(13) and 11(14) of the Ordinance. If the pending mark is registered, it could dilute the Opposer’s registered mark.

The Opposer claims that the Applicant acted in bad faith by choosing the horse and rider and was attempting to free-ride on the Opposer’s reputation which has been carefully established over many years. The Opposer considers the mark as representing unfair competition and is thus contrary to sections 11(6) and 12 of the Ordinance.

Furthermore, the Opposer considers the Applicant’s testimony as untrustworthy and that the Applicant has a long history of copying well-known marks and that the current mark was created by selecting elements from established marks, and so is allegedly non-registerable due to Section 11(5) of the Ordinance.

In the framework of their agreement, the Opposer claims that in addition to the applicant trying to copy the general circular appearance of the Opposer’s marks, he also chose to incorporate the olive branches that were allegedly copied from Israel Registered Trademark No. 227079 to Fred Perry (Holdings Ltd).

The Opposer also considered the applied for mark as lacking distinctive character, and thus contrary to Section 8(a) of the Ordinance, this due to the mark lacking anything unique.

Applicant’s Claims

On 22 April 2015, the Applicant responded with their counter-statement of case.  Applicant considers that there is no danger of confusion of unfair competition because the pending mark has to be considered in its entirety and in addition to the rampant horse and rider of the Opposer, the Opposer’s mark includes the words Beverly Hills and Polo Club, which are not elements of the pending mark. Applicant considers these words as central elements that are engraved in the consumer’s consciousness.

The Applicant adds that the common element of the rampant horse and rider were not created by the Opposer but have a long history in the fashion industry.

The Applicant accuses the Opposer of taking inspiration for their mark from Ralph Lauren, US Polo Association and others, and referred to such marks in use in Israel (see appendices to counter-statement of case and affidavit. The Applicant notes that the fact that the claimed motif is common and in widespread use is accepted by the international case-law.

As to the marks being confusingly similar, the pending mark has the letters PJ and not Polo Club, the marks are pronounced differently; the Opposer’s mark is jumping, whereas the applied for mark has three legs, the Opposer’s mark has a circular ring whereas the applied for mark has olive branches.

The Applicant claims to be targeting the popular market that purchases clothing in shops, bazaars and public markets whereas the Opposer is targeting an exclusive clientele by referring to the Beverly Hills Polo Club. This alone should be enough to differentiate between the Applicant’s and Opposer’s goods and distribution channels.

Finally, the Applicant considers that relating to the olive branches as being confusingly similar to those of the Fred Perry mark was only raised in the summations and is thus an illegitimate widening of the issues beyond the Statement of Case.

The Evidence

On 21 September 2015, an affidavit was submitted by Mr Eli Hadad, the director and owner of the Opposer. Similarly, the Opposer submitted an affidavit by David Bar, the director and owner of Beverly Hills Fashion Ltd which manufacturers, imports and distributes the Opposer’s products since 2008 under a franchise from Lifestyle Licensing.

On 22 November 2015, the Applicant submitted their evidence together with an affidavit. On 11 September 2016, a hearing was held, during which the parties cross-examined each other’s witnesses. The parties submitted their summaries and now the time is ripe to issue a ruling.

The Ruling

The ruling related to the following issues:

  1. Did the Opposer widen their front of attack such that references to Fred Perry and the olive branches should be struck from the record?
  2. Is the Opposer’s mark a well-known mark as defined by the Ordinance?
  3. Is there a danger of the similarity causing confusion?
  4. Did Applicant act in bad-faith in choosing the mark?

Since the argument regarding similarity to the Fred Perry mark was first mentioned in the summation, it is indeed an illegitimate widening and should be struck. However, to bring things to a final conclusion, the Adjudicator addressed this issue substantively.

Is the Opposer’s Mark Well-Known?

The Ordinance defines well-known marks and the Adjudicator went through the usual hoops, citing the Absolut and Pentax cases. The Opposer notes that Lifestyle Equities CV is one of the top 100 licensing companies. However, the Adjudicator noted that this says nothing regarding whether the specific brand and mark is well-known in Israel. The Opposer failed to establish that the brand was widely promoted in Israel. The distributor, Erroca, is widely known, but as a distributor of eye-glasses. Facebook followers and the like were not considered persuasive either. There also remained a problem that even if Beverly Hills Polo Club is a well-known brand, that does not mean that the horse and polo player are well-known.

Is there a danger of the similarity causing confusion?

Here the Adjudicator applied the triple test; the appearance of the marks being the issue rather than their sound since PJ and Polo Club sound rather different.

There is a similarity in that both marks include a horse and rider, but the horse and rider appear different, and there are other elements that are found in only one mark or the other.

Notably, unlike in similar oppositions abroad, the mark in Israel does not include the term Polo Club and the Opposer did not bring a market survey to show the similarity.

Citing the 212574 ,211841  Nautica Inc ruling from 15 February 2012:

Registration of a trademark does not provide a monopoly for a concept, such as someone holding a golf club or riding a horse, but only for the specific rendering of the idea in the mark.

The marks were not considered confusing.


Did Applicant act in bad-faith in choosing the mark?

The Opposer suggested that the PJ letters were taken from the trademark number 103307 for Polo Jeans Co. owned by the Polo/Lauren Company, and since the Applicant was a former worker of Polo US he could not claim ignorance of this mark. The Opposer also noted that the Applicant admitted to having a reputation for fake goods.

The Adjudicator did not find the allegations sufficiently compelling. This was also the case with the similarity between the olive branches of the trademark and of Fred Perry, which are both different.


The Adjudicator Ms Shoshani Caspi concluded that the alleged similarity between the marks did not pose a danger of misleading the consumers regarding the origin of the goods. This made the existence of absence of distinctive elements moot, since the claim was raised by the Opposer solely to base the claim of misleading similarity.

The Opposition was rejected and, using her powers under Section 69 of the Ordinance, the Adjudicator Ms Shoshani Caspi ordered Lifestyle to pay 7000 Shekels + VAT in costs.


I found the argument that the Applicant’s mark was for the fashion-conscious common polo-playing man, whereas the Opposer’s mark was for smart Beverly Hills playing polo set, rather amusing.

I suspect that Fred Perry’s olive branches and those of the Applicant are actually laurels.

The decision is reasonable. However, it seems contrary to the Tigris ruling. However, in general, there does not seem to be a great deal of consistency with trademark rulings.

There was an interim request by Ivgy that Lifestyle post a bond to cover costs should they lose. This was refused.



July 6, 2017

277424Totachi Kougyo Co ltd submitted Israel Trademark Application Number 277424. The Application was in classes 4, 7, 9, 11 and 12 and is shown alongside. The Application is the national phase of an International Trademark under the Madrid Protocol. On 6 December 2016, the mark was allowed and under Section 56vi of the Trademark Ordinance, the International Bureau was notified with details about the deadline for Oppositions.

On 27 March 2017, Total SA filed an Opposition in accordance with Section 24(a) of the Trademark Ordinance 19722 and regulation 35 of the 1940 regulations. Consequently, on 29 March 2017, the International Office was informed, together with the deadline for responding.

The Applicant had two months, until 29 May 2017 to respond to the Opposition. However, until the date of this decision, 18 June 2017, no response was received from the Applicant. On 11 June 2017, the Opposer requested that the Israel Patent and Trademark Office note that the since no timely response was received, the Opposition should be accepted and the mark considered cancelled.

The Adjudicator of Intellectual Property, Ms Shoshani Caspi, accepted this request. Consequently the mark is considered withdrawn and the International Bureau will be duly informed. No costs are awarded.

Decision re Israel Trademark Application 277424 to Totachi Kougyo Co ltd, 18 June 2017