We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
On behalf of our client, Mr. Tarek Kudsi Alattar, a Syrian
trader, we filed a trademark application for "ALATTAR (in
Latin & Arabic letters)" in Kuwait on 25 January 2009
under number 100919 in respect of all goods in class 5. The
trademark was published in the Official Gazette on 2 January
2011.
Ajlan & Brothers, a Saudi company who owns "ALATTAR (in
Latin & Arabic letters)" in class 25 in Kuwait since the
1998s, submitted an opposition against our client's trademark
based on the following:
They have prior registration of the trademark in their home
country and in Kuwait.
Our client's trademark application date is later than their
trademark's registration date.
Allowing the registration of our client's trademark will
lead to confusing the public.
We have submitted a counter statement against the said
opposition on the following basis:
Our client's application is for registration in class 5,
while the opponent's trademark is registered in class 25.
The use of our client's mark is for different goods than
the opponent's, and there has not been any prior use by anyone
for this trademark in the same class, neither in Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait, nor any other country.
Our client has valid registration certificates in their home
country (Syria), the opponent's home country (Saudi Arabia),
and many other countries abroad, in the classes 5 and 25.
The wording ALATTAR is the family name of our client.
After studying the submitted evidence, and reviewing the case
thoroughly, the Registrar in Kuwait issued his decision in our
favour and rejected the opposition filed by Ajlan &
Brothers.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
BMW had sued Grandmark, a company that is a major supplier of replacement parts, in other words vehicle parts that aren't manufactured by the vehicle manufacturers themselves but rather by independent companies, and that often cost a fraction of the price of the originals.
The Economist, in an editorial called ‘Print Me a Stradivarius’, recently questioned how 3- dimensional printing will affect IP. My reaction was a simple: Say What!
A discussion on the decision of the Indian Supreme Court to deny Novartis’s application for patent protection for an improved version of its patented Glivec drug.
The news that what’s arguably the world’s best known company, Apple, is unable to continue selling what’s arguably the world’s hottest product, IPad, under that name in China will give IP lawyers the heebie-jeebies.
A Brazilian company called Gradiente has managed to get a Brazilian trade mark registration for the mark iPhone for cell phones.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
