{"id":1908,"date":"2024-09-01T12:25:17","date_gmt":"2024-09-01T12:25:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/turvaja.ee\/news\/uudiskiri-nr-46-2-2-2\/"},"modified":"2024-09-01T12:33:24","modified_gmt":"2024-09-01T12:33:24","slug":"uudiskiri-nr-46-2-2-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/turvaja.ee\/en\/news\/uudiskiri-nr-46-2-2-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Newsletter No. 49"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Decisions of the Estonian Industrial Property Board of Appeal<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
<\/g><\/svg><\/div>\n\n

I Oppositions<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n


Decision No. 2243-o<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n

Earlier trademark<\/p>\n\n\n\n

S7<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n

Opposed trademark<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Opposition to registration of the trademark <\/em>\u201c<\/strong><\/em>S7 + device<\/strong><\/em>\u201c <\/strong><\/em>(accelerated procedure)<\/em>.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The opponent considers that the applicant\u2019s mark \u201cS7 + device\u201c is so identical that there is a likelihood of confusion with the opponent\u2019s earlier mark \u201cS7\u201d. The contested registration seeks protection for identical and similar goods compared to goods covered by the earlier trademarks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Patent Office forwarded the notice of filing of the opposition to the proprietor of the opposed trademark. The owner has not notified the Board that he wishes to contest the appeal. Under these circumstances, the Board will, in the final proceedings, grant the application without giving reasons for its decision, in so far as it is not manifestly unfounded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The opposition was sustained.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Decision No. 2144-o<\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n

\u200bEarlier trademark<\/p>\n\n\n\n


VIGAMOX<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n

Opposed trademark<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u200b
BISRAMOX<\/strong>\u200b<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Opposition to registration of the trademark <\/em>\u201c<\/strong><\/em>BISRAMOX<\/strong><\/em>\u201d<\/strong><\/em>.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the Board, the applicant\u2019s and opponent\u2019s trademarks are not visually similar. The Board considers that the initial parts of the comparable marks \u201cBISRA\u201d versus \u201cVIGA\u201d – which, according to case law, hold greater weight in the assessment of similarity compared to the final parts of the marks – are clearly different. The Board agrees with the applicant that the opponent\u2019s emphasis on the common element AMOX between the trademarks is artificial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the Board, the applicant\u2019s and the opponent\u2019s trademarks are not phonetically similar either. Although the final syllable [-moks] of the comparable marks is pronounced identically, this is outweighed by the difference in pronunciation resulting from the first and stressed syllables [vi-ga-] versus [bis-ra-].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regarding the semantic aspect, the Board considers that both trademarks are known to have no meaning. Even if the opponent\u2019s trademark were to be well-known and reputable, it would not follow that the trademark would have a meaning that can be transferred to other marks in the opinion of the Board.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Based on the above, the Board is of the opinion that the trademarks \u201cBISRAMOX\u201d and \u201cVIGAMOX\u201d are generally different, therefore, despite the identity of the goods of class 5 covered by the trademarks, there is no likelihood of confusion or association between the two trademarks. In the present case, according to the Board, the likelihood of confusion is further reduced by the fact that the goods in question are medicines, while in the case of medicines, the level of attentiveness of sufficiently informed, reasonably observant and intelligent consumers is particularly high.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The opposition was dismissed.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n

Decisions of the Domain Disputes Committee<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n
\n\n

<\/a>Case No. 24-1a-372<\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Opposed domain name: <\/em>e-residentsus.ee<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the opposition, the opponent relies on the EU trademark \u201ce-Residency\u201d, which on the date of the decision was registered in the name of the Ettev\u00f5tluse Arendamise Sihtasutus (EAS; Enterprise Estonia). The opponent has explained and proven that they are the legal successor of EAS, and on this basis the opponent is of the opinion that they are also the owner of the EU trademark \u201ce-Residency\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Committee accepts that the opponent is the legal successor of EAS. At the same time, the Committee establishes that the opponent cannot be considered a trademark owner, since the opponent is not entered in the EU trademark register as the owner of the \u201ce-Residency\u201d trademark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the evidence presented, the Ettev\u00f5tluse ja Innovatsiooni Sihtasutus (EIS; Estonian Business and Innovation Agency) was created by the merger of the KredEx Foundation and EAS in January 2022. The owner of the trademark, EAS, as a merged entity, was deleted from the register of non-profit organizations and foundations. The regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the European Union trademark states that until the transfer is entered in the register, the legal successor cannot exercise the rights arising from the registration of the EU trademark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Due to the above, the Committee is not able to consider the EU trademark \u201ce-Residency\u201d as an earlier right of the opponent. This could be done by the Committee after registering the transfer of the trademark in the EU trademark register.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The opposition was dismissed.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n
<\/g><\/svg><\/div>\n\n

The material provided in this newsletter is for informational purpose only and does not contain legal advice.
For additional information please contact our patent agency:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Patendib\u00fcroo TURVAJA O\u00dc
Liivalaia 22
Tallinn 10118
Estonia<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

turvaja@turvaja.ee<\/a>
Phone: +372 6 403 109<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n<\/div><\/div>\n

\u00a9 Patendib\u00fcroo TURVAJA O\u00dc, 2024<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

We invite you to have a look at the 49th issue of Turvaja newsletter.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"class_list":["post-1908","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/turvaja.ee\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1908","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/turvaja.ee\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/turvaja.ee\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/turvaja.ee\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/turvaja.ee\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1908"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/turvaja.ee\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1908\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1910,"href":"https:\/\/turvaja.ee\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1908\/revisions\/1910"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/turvaja.ee\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1908"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/turvaja.ee\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1908"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}