Smash

May 7, 2017

smash3Talber Pop LTD owns Israel trademark number 240598 “SMASH” for Notebooks, stationery, diaries, binders; gift wrapping paper, paper gift wrapping bows, paper cake decorations, paper party bags, loot bags, cello bags, paper party decorations, paper party hats, paper tables cloths, paper napkins, banner made of paper and/or cardboards; all included in class 16, and Backpacks, sidepacks, back bags, side bags, sport bags, tote bags, book bags, school bags, food bags, pencil cases sold empty, wallets, waist packs, briefcases, bike bags, toiletry cases sold empty, fanny packs, suitcases, umbrellas, umbrella covers; all included in class 18. They also own a second Israel trademark number 241238 for SMASH in class 14 covering watches, chronometers and their parts.

On 30 December 2017, Smash Enterprises Pty LTD submitted a request to cancel the marks or to allow their marks to be co-registered. On 2 March 2016, Talber Pop responded with their Counter-Statement of Case.

The request for cancellation followed an attempt by Smash Enterprises Pty LTD to register their Israel Trademark Application 274301. After various extensions were authorized, on 26 January 2017 the parties submitted a joint request for coexistence based on a civil court ruling under which they undertook to differentiate their services and goods.

Smash Enterprises Pty LTD’s mark was in class 21 and covered containers for household or kitchen use; household or kitchen utensils; containers for beverages; containers for food; heat insulated containers for beverages; heat retaining containers for food and drink; insulated containers; lunch boxes; isothermic bags; bottles including water bottles (containers); beverage coolers (containers); drinking containers; portable coolers; ice containers; ice packs; plastic containers (household utensils); lids for household or kitchen containers; tableware, including plates, dishes, drinking glasses, bowls, cups, saucers, mugs and jugs, all being of plastic materials; cooking utensils for use with domestic barbecues; storage boxes, baskets and containers for household use; household rubbish containers (bins); glassware for domestic use; ceramic tableware; baking trays; storage jars; cooler bags; thermally insulated bags for food and drink.

Essentially, the two parties are interested in co-registration of Israel TM 274301 to Smash Enterprises together with those registered by Talber Pop LTD. (Smash Enterprises did have a second application in class 18, but seem to have abandoned that, as to allow the same mark for similar goods in the same class is particularly difficult).

The Commissioner can allow co-registration under Section 30a for identical or similar marks for identical or similar goods if the application to do is filed in good faith or if there are extenuating circumstances that allows coexistence.

The wording of Section 30(a) is as follows:

Where it appears to the Registrar that there is honest concurrent use, or where there are other special circumstances which in his opinion justify the registration of identical or similar trade marks for the same goods or description of goods by more than one proprietor, the Registrar may permit such registration subject to such conditions and limitations, if any as he may think fit. (b) A decision of the Registrar under subsection (a) shall be subject to appeal to the Supreme Court. The appeal shall be filled within thirty days from the date of the decision of the Registrar. In the appeal, the Court shall have all the powers conferred upon the Registrar under subsection (a). 

The Applicant for coexistence has to prove that he is acting in good faith. Furthermore, he has to establish that despite the marks being identical or apparently similar to those registered, there is no practical risk that the consumer will confuse between the marks. In this regard, in the 87779/04 Yotvata vs. Tnuva ruling it is stated that:

In rulings [based on Section 30a of the Ordinance] the emphasis will be on the equitable behavior of the parties adopting the mark and on the need to protect the public from similar marks that might create misleading or unfair competition (Friedman p. 431).

See also 48827-03-14 Biosensors Europe SA vs. Commissioner of Patents from 22 February 2015:

The burden of proof that there is no likelihood of confusion falls on the two companies interested in the co-registration, and they have to prove that for many years they used the marks in Israel without the public being confused.

In this regard, the main thread running through the Ordinance is that identical or confusingly similar marks should not be registered if they will mislead the public. Thus in  10959/05 Delta Lingerie S.A.O.F vs Cachan Tea Board, India :7.12.06 :

Confusion and the risk of misleading is the living breath of the Ordinance. This is the main danger that we have to deal with. The various options of Section 11 that list marks that may not be registered reflect different types of confusion, and way to prevent them.

Where marks are more confusingly similar, the level of evidence that is required to show that there is no danger in their both being registered by Commissioner discretion under Section 30a is higher. See for example, the ruling concerning Israel TMs 24886 and 233056 Orbinka Investments LTD vs Now Securites Ohr Yehuda 1989 ltd., 24 July 2015 and 252115, 244719 Gaudi Trade SPA vs. Guess, Inc., 27 July 2016.

Alternatively, the Commissioner has to consider whether there are other special considerations that allow identical or similar marks for identical or similar goods.

In this instance the parties have reached a coexistence agreement following arbitration before Adv. Gai-Ron, and the Arbitrator of IP prefers constructive discussion and compromise rather than judicial ruling that are all or nothing. Nevertheless, the mere fact that the parties are interested in co-existing is insufficient to allow it where the is a likelihood of confusion. The Commissioner has the sole authority and responsibility to ensure that the Israel public are not confused by such marks, and such agreements are no more than an indication that must be weighed up with other considerations before allowing co-existence. See 1611/07 Micha Danziger vs. Shmuel Mor, 23 August 2012: 

The desire of the parties that grow and market Gypsophila is one thing. The registration of confusingly similar marks is something else. Furthermore, and this is the important point – we are not relating to the parties’ consent, but to the balances in the law. The prohibition to register the requested mark is based on the need to protect consumers that were not party to the agreement between appellant and defender, (although such agreements may be indicative as part of a general analysis).

Thus it cannot be disputed that the Commissioner is not obliged to follow agreements between the parties. Nevertheless, in appropriate circumstances and where such agreements are valid, the Commissioner may allow co-existence based on such agreements – see 10105-05-16 Campalock ltd vs Commissioner of Patents, Trademarks and Designs 4/12/16.

In this instance, the parties submitted a two paragraph laconic request for co-existence stating that they had reached an agreement. However it is not enough to negotiate an agreement that serves the interests of the parties. A request to allow two pending applications to coexist or for a new application to be registered alongside an existing one must be justified by a detailed explanation showing why the public will not be confused.

There is no way to relate to whether the sides behaved equitably since the case should be closed before a hearing is conducted. The parties did not even address this issue in their request. The  marks are identical for the word SMASH and there is certainly a similarity between schoolbags in class 18 and food bags and drink containers in Class 21 since these goods could be sold in the same retail outlets and there is therefore a room for confusion between goods in classes 18 and 21.

The Examiner reached a similar conclusion when she objected to the 2743011 mark under Section 11(9), and mere consent of the owner of a mark cited against a pending mark is insufficient to overcome a Section 11(9) objection.

The agreement does list the steps that the parties have undertaken to take, but this is insufficient. Firstly, the mark owner of the registered marks undertakes not to use a logo similar to that of the Applicant for cancellation, but the logo is not appended. An agreement not to use the same graphic is too narrow since the degree of similarity that is allowed is not related to. The registration would cause the register to be different from that happening in business.

Under the agreement, the side requesting cancellation would have the sole right to use the mark for boxes and containers for storing food and drink and the mark owner would be prohibited from so-doing. However, the mark owner’s registration 240598 (group 18) includes “food bags”. Food bags are essentially food storage bags. There is thus an overlap which creates confusion.

Thus the Arbitrator Ms Shoshani Caspi finds herself considering two identical marks for the word SMASH for two different entities that cover inter alia the same goods which creates a strong risk of confusion.

Consequently, as part of their joint submission. the parties should have provided a detailed explanation why TM 274301 in class 21 should be registerable together with TM 240598 in class 18. This wasn’t done, and the parties have provided no explanation as to how to avoid confusion. The request for coexistence is refused. The parties have until 1 June 2017 to inform whether they wish to conduct a cancellation proceeding.

Smash ruling, Ms Shoshani Caspi, 26 April 2017.

Comment

The ruling is solid and both parties were represented. The parties are interested in compromising. The Patent and Trademark Office have to consider the public interest and to prevent confusion, but nevertheless one wonders why the arbitrator did not simply request that the parties relate to a list of issues that their agreement does not address, rather than to refuse the request.

 


Panama Jack

April 23, 2017

Panama JackPanama Jack Inc. submitted a cancellation request against registered Israel TM No. 79826 for a Panama Jack pendant which was registered back in 1994 in group 25 by Grupp Internacional SA.

Section 41(a) of the 1972 Tradeamrk Ordinance states that:

Any interested party may request cancellation of a trademark on the grounds that there was never a good faith intention of using the mark and that the mark was not used in good faith within the three year period prior to the cancellation request being submitted.

Registered trademarks are considered property rights in all respects and should not be undermined without due consideration. The requester for cancellation was to show that the mark was not in use. See 476/82 Orloged.vs. Commissioner of Patents p.d. 39 (2) 148. The burden of evidence then bounces back and forth between the parties, and if the challenger provides prima facie evidence that shows that a mark should not be cancelled, the burden of proof then falls on the mark owner to dispute the evidence brought by the challenger and to supply evidence that there was, in fact, use of the mark. Where there remains a doubt, this works for the benefit of the mark owner, and the mark will not be cancelled. BAGATZ 296/89 Philip Morris vs. Moorgate Tobacco Co Ltd. p.d. 41 (1) 485.

Regulation 70 of the 1940 Trademark Regulations state that:

A request to correct a registration or to cancel a registered mark from the register will detail the facts and the requested correction and will be submitted in two copies; one to the Registrar and the other to the owner of the mark.

In this instance no one denies that the mark owner received a copy of the cancellation request.

Section 71 of the regulations state the case should continue as follows:

With submission of a cancellation request with copy to the registered owner, the matter proceeds in accordance with regulations 37 to 46 (opposition regulations) with the appropriate changes.

The mark owner has two months, i.e. until 30 January 2017 to respond. In this instance, he failed to do so and also failed to request an extension of time. In so doing, Section 71(a)a applies:

If the owner of a mark does not submit a response under Sefction 70 within two months, the Commissioner will give the supplicant two months to state their case.

In this instance, as the mark owner has failed to respond, the Supplicant for cancellation has two months to submit their evidence.

Re 79826 Grupp Internacional vs. Panama Jack, Intermediate Ruling Shoshana Yaara Caspi, 13 March 2017


Trademark Cancellations – Jumping on the band wagon

April 23, 2017

the herbsMichael Noy-Meir owns Israel TM No. 106994 for “Supherbs”. He is represented by Chani Rosenberg and Associates.

Ambrosia Supherb LTD filed a cancellation request and Peretz Gan, represented by Chani Roenberg and Associates wishes to join the case as a third-party. Peretz Gan claims to be a partner with Noy-Meir the mark owner for 20 years and that both of them used the mark over a twelve-year period.

The Cancellation request was submitted on 3 November 2016 and on 27 November 2016, Peretz Gan requested that the mark be assigned to him, based on an agreement from 19 September 2016.

On 4 January 2017, Deputy Commissioner Jacqueline Bracha ruled that if the mark survives the cancellation process, it may be assigned, but cannot be assigned whilst under attack.

Ambrosia Supherb LTD object to Peretz Gan being added as a third-party. They claim that there is insufficient evidence that he was rights in the mark as required by Regulation 72 of the 1940 trademark regulations. The Supplicant for Cancellation has also requested that following submission of an Affidavit, a date for a hearing be set.

Regulation 72 states:

Any person other than the registered proprietor who claims to have a benefit in a registered trade mark in respect of which an application has been filed under regulation 70 may apply to the Registrar for permission to allow him to join the proceeding and the Registrar may refuse or grant such permission after hearing the parties concerned and to set the conditions that he shall deem necessary. Before the application is heard in any manner whatsoever, the Registrar may demand that the applicant make an undertaking to pay the same expenses that the Registrar shall award to one of the parties in the circumstances.

The Deputy Commissioner does not see justification to reject the request. Section 72 sets a low bar for adding third parties to cancellation or opposition proceedings. It is adequate for a third-party to declare some interest to be cojoined to the proceeding. The Deputy Commissioner does not consider that the third party has to prove standing and refers to the Patent Office Ruling concerning 216,916 Danny Argon vs. Strauss Culture Factories LTD (11 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.

A hearing is set for 20 April 2017 at 2 PM and the third-party may submit his supporting affidavit by 6 April 2017.


Freshly Squeezed

April 19, 2017

שחוטThis ruling concerns a cancellation request by the originator of a mark against a registered owner who bought the mark with other assets from a company that the originator had sold his business to that had subsequently gone bankrupt.

The grounds for cancellation request were alleged lack of use.

Israel Trademark No. 220623 is for a stylized logo including the phrase “סחוט טרי” transliterated as ‘Schut Tari’ which means freshly squeezed. The mark is owned by Schut Tari 2007 ltd and was registered for nonalcoholic drinks in Class 32.

 

Background

The manager of the Applicant for Cancellation, Mr Ohad Harsonsky set up a factory in the 1990s for producing fruit juices that were marketed under the Schut Tari brand.

orange jewsApproximately in the year 2000, Harsonsky set up the Shut Tari company that continued the activities of the factory. At the beginning of 2005, Harsonsky decided to sell the company and the factory to Pri-fer Natural Marketing and Distribution (2005) ltd. [MF – Pri is Hebrew for fruit. The name is a pun on prefer] which was established by MR Erez Rifkin to make the purchase. Mr Rifkin established Prifer Natural ltd, a company active in the fruit juice industry, in the early 21st Century.

phones-blackberry-orange-phone-fruit-demotivational-posters-1295112418Blackberry on Orange sketch.

After the purchase was concluded, Pri-fer changed their name to ‘Schut Tari Mitz’ Tivi ltd. (Natural Freshly Squeezed Juice ltd), and Schut Tari changed their name to Multi-Pri ltd. The Pri-fer Group started producing freshly squeezed juices and Multi-pri stopped all activities. The Pri-fer Group did not succeed in absorbing all of Schut Tari’s activities, and Pri-fer was late paying the sale price. A business disagreement developed and the Pri-fer Group and Multi-pri agreed to mediation in March 2006. A mediated agreement was given the status of a court ruling by the Ramallah Magistrate’s Court. The mediator was Haim Sodkovitz who represents Eco Alpha, the Applicant for Cancellation.

orange juice squeezerPri-fer and Mr Rifkin were unable to meet the negotiated payment terms that were agreed to in the mediation. Consequently, on 7 March 2007, Harsonsky and Multi-Pri used legal collection means. However, since Rifkin started bankruptcy proceedings and the Pri-fer Group is being disbanded, the bailiffs were unable to collect the debt. Read the rest of this entry »


A Storm in a Coffee Cup

March 20, 2017

This ruling relates to competing rights of different relatives to register and use trademarks for a family business that eventually split up. The marks were registered by a cousin living in Ramallah, and cousins living in East Jerusalem applied to have the marks cancelled on various grounds including passing off, misleading marks, inequitable behavior and lack of use.

234876 LOGOChain Stores of Izhiman Coffee Company own two trademarks: Israel Trademark No. 234876 for the logo shown alongside, and 234877 for the Arabic and English word mark
بن ازحيمان IZHIMAN’S COFFEE.

Maazen and Shapik Izhimian applied to have the marks canceled under Section 39 of the Trademark Ordinance 1972, and further under Section 41 for lack of use.

The marks were first applied for by Muhammad Musa H’alad Izhiman in January 2011, and after examination, were registered on 2 May 2012 for “coffee and coffee spices in class 30.” On 27 February 2014, the marks was assigned to Chain Stores of Izhiman Coffee Company, a Palestinian Company based in Ramallah that was owned by Muhammad Musa H’alad Izhiman and his two sons Kassam and Nasser.

On 5 March 2014, the brothers Maazen and Shapik Izhimian who own a Jerusalem based business in Bet HaBad Street, for marketing and trading in coffee and spices under the name “Izhiman’s Coffee” and who are cousins of Muhammad, submitted a cancellation request. In July 2014, the owners Chain Stores of Izhiman Coffee Company submitted their response.

The Background

EnjoyMuhammad, his three brothers and the Applicants for cancellation are all members of the same clan, that were involved in the family business established by Musa, Muhammad’s father, together with Mahmud, the father of Maazen and Shapik in the 1980s. The company had three addresses, the Ramallah address, the Jerusalem address now run by Maazen and Shapik, and a third branch in Abu Dis.

In 1994, Muhammad fell out with his brothers and nephews and received sole ownership of the Ramallah store. His three brothers and the nephews shared the Abu Dis and the Bet HaBad Jerusalem shops and opened a further outlet themselves in Ramallah. In 2000 the applicants for cancellation and Muhammad’s three brothers opened a fourth branch in Salah Shabati Salahadin Street in East Jerusalem. In 2008, these partners ceased to cooperate, and Maazen and Shapik were left with the Jerusalem Store in Bet HaBad Street.

love.jpgMaazen and Shapik submitted an affidavit written by Maazen and a second one from Riyadh Ghazi Halaq, the owner of a coffee shop near the Bet HaBad address that buys his raw coffee from them. The mark owners responded with an Affidavit by Nasser Muhammad Musa Izhiman, Partner and authorized signatory. At the end of September 2016, the Adjudicator of IP, Ms Yaara Shoshani Caspi held a hearing and the witnesses were cross-examined.
Read the rest of this entry »


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.


UNILAK

January 6, 2017

Israel Trademark Number 121683 to Industrias Titan, S.A. is for the word UNILAK covering paints, colours, varnishes, lacquers, enamels; all included in class 2. It was registered back in 1999.

On 16 October 2015, Israel paint company Nirlet LTD filed a request to have the mark canceled due to lack of use. A notice of the cancellation request was sent to Industrias Titan, S.A., but they ignored it, and did not respond in any way.

Nirlet claims that Industrias Titan has not used the mark in Israel over the past three years and there are no extraordinary reasons justifying this lack of use.

Section 41 of the Trademark Ordinance 1972 states that:

“…any interested in so doing can file a trademark cancellation request on the basis of there never being an intention for bona-fide use or that the there was no bonafide use during the three years prior to submission o

 

Trademarks are property rights that are not trivially

f the cancellation request.”disposed of, and the burden of proof lies with the requester for cancellation -see Bagatz 476/82 Orlogad vs. Commissioner of Patents, p.d. 39 (2) 148. This burden of proof switches from one party to another throughout the cancellation proceeding, but there remains a requirement for the requester of cancellation to bring supporting evidence of the alleged lack of use. Only if this burden of proof is met, does the onus transfer to the mark owner to overcome the evidence provided by the challenger and to show that the mark is indeed in use. Cases that are not clear-cut work in favour of the mark owner – see Bagatz 296/89 Moorgate tobacco Co. vs Philip Morris Inc, p.d. 41 (1) 485 on page 493.

Regulation 70 of the 1940 trademark regulations provides the procedural requirements:

A request to correct the register or to cancel a mark from the register will detail the interest of the requester, the facts and the requested change in two copies: one for the Commissioner and one for the registered owner.

The adjudicator of IP, Ms Yaara Shoshani Caspi, ruling on the case, was convinced that the mark owner was served the papers. Consequently, regulation 71 comes into effect:

With such a request, and a copy sent to the mark owner, the procedural arrangements of regulations 37 to 46 come into effect (with the necessary changes as appropriate):

The mark owner should have submitted a counter statement of case by 16 December 2016, but failed to do so. Consequently, regulation 71a comes into effect:

If the mark owner does not submit a response within two months, the patent office will give the challenger two months to file his evidence.

Thus in absence of a Counter Statement of Case from  Industria Titan, the challenger is given two months to file their evidence and to send a copy to the Industria Titan.

Interim Ruling re Cancellation of Israel Trademark 121683, Ms Shoshani-Caspi, 25 December 2016.