Our Client’s Mark	Opponent’s Registered Mark

 
On 20 May 2014, we filed a trademark application on behalf of our client, Bilal Mohammad AL Hamwi, for “City Creamer” in Gaza in class 29. The application was assigned number 18963, then published in the Official Gazette number 54 on 28 May 2015.

Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. (“Nestlé”), the owner of trademark “Coffee Mate” filed an opposition against our client’s mark based on earlier registrations for “Coffee Mate” based on the following grounds:

• Similarity between “City Creamer” and “Coffee Mate” in terms of appearance and general look;
• Coffee Mate is a well-known trademark worldwide;
• Registration of the opposed mark will mislead the public about the origin of the products and will confuse the consumers between both products, and
• Due to the above, allowing the registration of “City Creamer” contradicts local Trademark Law.

In our response, we presented proof that “City Creamer” has no counterpart “mug design” mark to that of Opponent’s, which Opponent dismissed as irrelevant. We also argued that the figurative elements illustrated the differences in the imagery, which far outweighed any supposed similarities.

The Registrar reviewed the Opponent’s opposition and our argument, and ruled to allow our client’s mark to register. The Opponent appealed said decision before the Supreme Court, but the Committee found that a likelihood of confusion did not exist and subsequently affirmed the decision of the Registrar.

For more information, please contact gaza@qumsieh.com.

On 2 July 2016, our client, Bilal Mohammad AL Hamwi, instructed us to file a trademark application for “City Creamer” in the EUIPO in class 29. The application was assigned to number 012929501 then published on 5 August 2014.

Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. (“Nestlé”), the owner of trademark “Coffee Mate” filed an opposition against our client’s mark based on earlier IR mark number 883040 designating Bulgaria on the following grounds:

• Non use of our client’s mark on some of the goods for which it has applied;
• The likelihood of confusion due to the similarity of goods and design, and
• The relevant public will likely be confused between our client’s mark and their Nestlé’s mark Coffee Mate.

In our counter reply we show proof of use of our client’s mark in all items mentioned in the application. The opponent admits the presence of the stylised words in red: ‘City Creamer’ which have no counterpart in their “mug design” mark which dismisses this difference as irrelevant, since the official script in Bulgaria is Cyrillic. The opponent then asserts that as the words are in Latin script it is ‘highly unlikely that the average Bulgarian consumer will be able to read the words in the our client’s application’.

The figurative elements illustrates that the differences in the imagery far outweigh any supposed similarities.

The Registrar reviewed the opponents opposition and our argument, and finally ruled its decision to allow our client’s mark to register. Said decision became final.

For more information, please contact info@qumsieh.com.