On July 8, the session on intellectual property for exporters switches from the Advisory Office platform to telephone communication. Being at a distance from his office, the consultantee can not connect to the ZOOM platform and asks a question by phone
The individual entrepreneur decided to cede the trademark to the enterprise and signed a contract of assignment with him, which was not registered by the National Center of Intellectual Property.
The question of the individual entrepreneur concerned the legality of the refusal to register the contract of assignment.
The answer was of a reference and recommendation nature.
In accordance with Article 22 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Trademarks and Service Marks", the assignment of the exclusive right to a trademark is not allowed if it may cause the consumer to be misled about the product or its manufacturer.
It turned out that the same entrepreneur has another confusingly similar trademark registered in relation to the same goods (mobile metal structures, hand tools, hand-operated tools) belonging to classes 6, 7 and 8 of the International Classification of Goods and Services and services belonging to classes 35 and 37 for their wholesale and retail sale, as well as their repair and maintenance.
It is the presence of another similar trademark, which was not assigned under the contract, that is the reason for the refusal to register the contract due to its misleading nature for the consumer about the manufacturer.
The entrepreneur was recommended to give up both signs, united by a single design idea, a characteristic identical manner of writing identical verbal designations and a separate capital letter
