CASE SUMMARY TEMPLATE
|Jurisdiction:||Republic of TURKEY / Ankara 4. Civil Court of Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights|
|Subject Heading:||I.F Famous and Well-Known Marks|
|Case Name and Citation:||JEEP & JEEP (JEEP CASE)
Case No : 2008 / 220
Decision No : 2010 / 460
|Defendant:||1) Chryslr LLC
2) Turkish Patent Institute
|Marks Associated with Goods/Services:||The Plaintiff’s trademark application JEEP1 covering the goods in class 14 – The defendant’s trademarks “JEEP”2 are registered in classes 7, 8, 9,11,12 and 37.|
|Nature of Case:||The Plaintiff claims the cancellation of the Institute decision refusing its trademark application for JEEP in class 14 upon opposition filed by the Defendant’s according to the Articles 8/1 (b)3 and 8/44 of the Decree–Law No: 556 and the Article 16/2 of TRIPS5|
|Overview of Decision and Ruling:||The Court states that “JEEP” registered in classes 7,8, 9, 11, 12 and 37 is a well-known trademark in Turkey and worldwide, determines that the application of “JEEP” which is identical with the cited-well-known trademark will absolutely cause the confusion through the consumers. The Court did not accept the argumentation of the Plaintiff who claims the difference of the goods and classes covered by these trademarks and that the distinctive character of the indication JEEP has diluted.|
|Importance of Case:||This decision is important because it establishes that the regulation provides the trademark protection to well-known trademarks against the registration and use of identical indication for different goods and/or services.|
|Images/Description:||JEEP & JEEP|
|Contributor Firm:||Deris Patents and Trademarks Agency|
1 Application No: 2006/44061
2 Registration No: 191258 – Registration No:206817 and Registration No:90467
3 Article 8: Upon opposition by the proprietor of an application for registration of a trademark or of a registered trademark, the trademark applied for shall not be registered subject to the following conditions:
b) Where the trademark applied for is identical or similar to a registered trademark or to a trademark applied for registration under a prior date of filing and the registration is sought for identical or similar goods or services in that the likelihood of confusion includes the likelihood of association with the registered trademark or with the trademark applied for registration under a prior date of filing.
4 A trademark applied for which is identical or similar to a registered trademark or to a trademark application with a prior date of filing may be used for different goods and services. However, where in the case of a registered trademark or of a trademark application with a prior date of filing, the trademark has a reputation and where the use without due cause of trademark applied for would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the registered trademark or of the trademark application with a prior date of filing, upon opposition by the proprietor of the prior trademark registration or application, the trademark applied for shall be refused even if it is to be used in respect of differing goods and services.
5 2. Article 6bis of the Paris Convention (1967) shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to services. In determining whether a trademark is well-known, Members shall take account of the knowledge of the trademark in the relevant sector of the public, including knowledge in the Member concerned which has been obtained as a result of the promotion of the trademark.