The questions of the 11th session of the intellectual property consultation center for exporters are varied.
center for exporters were varied.
On September 23, 2021, the 11th session of the intellectual property consultation center for exporters ended.
The first question came from an accountant of a company that manufactures under the trademark Spadar such goods of Class 25 of the ICSU as clothing and Class 18 of the ICSU as leather goods.
The question concerned the legitimacy of the claim of the owner of the SPADAR senior trademark, registered in relation to such goods of the 03 class as cleaners, detergents, cosmetics, essential oils; 21 class. - Brush products; shaving brushes; toiletries carrier; combs; class 30 - coffee flavorings; coffee substitutes; vegetable coffee substitutes; cocoa; coffee; honey; chamomile-based drinks; tea drinks; non-medicated infusions; preserved garden herbs [spices]; tea.
The accountant of the Enterprise got the answer with the reference to the norms of articles 1 and 3 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Trademarks and Service Marks" (hereinafter - Law).
The consultation allowed the accountant of the enterprise to understand that the design they use and the registered senior trademark of another right holder are indeed similar to the point of confusion, they are identical in phonetics and semantics, and confusingly similar in graphics.
But at the same time the consultation allowed the participant of the consultation session to make sure that there was no offence on the part of the manufacturer of the goods of classes 18 and 25, which are dissimilar to the goods of classes 03, 21 and 30 of the Nice Classes.
There are more than 200 trademark jurisdictions in the world and they all apply similar rules for registration of marks or approaches to trademark violation for dissimilar goods.
In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the Law, the use of a trademark or a designation that is confusingly similar to it without the permission of the trademark owner in respect of similar goods, as well as dissimilar goods designated by a trademark recognized as well-known in the Republic of Belarus, is recognized as a violation of the exclusive right to a trademark.
Since the claimant is not the owner of the well-known trademark, his claim is illegal.
The second question was received from the Deputy Director of the road marking manufacturer concerning the possibility of filing a patent application for the "thermoplastic" invention.
The issue was discussed tête à tête. Additional counter questions allowed the consultant to orient himself with regard to the subject matter of the invention.
The joint discussion of some technology details allowed us to conclude that it is necessary to conduct patent research to determine the novelty and inventive step of the technical solution developed by the enterprise for the subsequent application for the invention "Method of production of thermoplastic".
The consultant ordered the service of patenting the method.
