LUXOTICA CASE SUMMARY
|Subject Heading:||I.D.1. Similarity of Marks|
|Case Name and Citation:||
TUFAN TÜZEY vs TURKISH PATENT INSTITUTE and LUXOTTICA GROUP S.P.A., Case No. 2011/28; Decision No.2012/14 (4th Ankara Court of Intellectual and Industrial Rights, February 14, 2012)
1- TURKISH PATENT INSTITUTE
|Marks Associated with Goods/Services:||
The plaintiff’s “ ” trademark application no.2009/43712 covering goods in classes 18 and 25.
|Nature of Case:||
Court action instituted for cancellation of the partial refusal decision of the Turkish Patent Institute regarding the trademark application upon acceptance of defendant’s (LUXOTTICA GROUP S.P.A.) opposition due the similarity with the plaintiff’s trademark no. 88/102828 in class 09, on the basis of likelihood of confusion.
Upon defendant’s opposition, Turkish Patent Institute has refused the plaintiff’s trademark application in respect of classes 18 and 25.
|Overview of Decision and Ruling:||
The plaintiff has asserted that:
and therefore requested cancellation of the TPI’s refusal decision issued regarding the trademark application in question.
The TPI as the Defendant has stated that the subject court action is not justified and the TPI’s decision is in accordance with the laws and therefore has requested that the subject court action should be rejected.
The other defendant LUXOTTICA GROUP SPA asserted that:
and requested that the subject court action be rejected.
In the reasoned decision issued by the court:
In consideration of the explanations and evidences submitted to the file and the expert’s reports, the court has decided to partially accept the case by cancelling the TPI’s decision issued in respect of goods in Class 18. (18.01, 18. 03 and 18.04) and Class 25. (25.01, 25.02 and 25.03) and to reject the case in terms of other goods, in respect of which the TPI’s decision of refusal is upheld.
|Importance of Case:||
Despite the almost identical similarity between the trademarks, the Court has not accepted the likelihood of confusion claims of the defendants due to the difference between the covered goods.
|Contributing Firm:||Deris Attorneys At Law Partnership|