IsRAEL
WHEn APPLICAnts CLAIM MoRE tHAn tHEY ARE EntItLED to AnD tHE
InDEPEnDEnt CLAIM Is InVALIDAtED, tHE DEPEnDEnt CLAIMs ALso fAIL
was upheld aft er the IPO ruled that specifi c dosages provided a surprising distributed its products for a decade only. Although Israel does not formally
synergy that enabled a constant blood sugar level to be maintained over accept unregistered rights, the patent offi ce gives signifi cant weight to issues
time. Th is constituted novelty and inventive step, according to the IPO. of equitable behaviour.
In another signifi cant decision, the deputy commissioner accepted an
In a radical decision, Assistant Commissioner Shmulovits allowed two
opposer’s arguments that an independent claim for a fl uorescent lighting
diff erent entities to register the same name ‘XO’ for energy drinks since
transformer circuit was anticipated by a diagram in a Russian text book
both parties apparently acted in good faith.
published in Hebrew in 1965. Eight dependent claims added additional
Jerusalem District Judge Noam Solberg ruled that ‘American Colony’
features to the independent claim. Surprisingly, Shmulovits ruled that
is a well-known mark for hotels since the American Colony Hotel is
when applicants claim more than they are entitled to and the independent
internationally renowned. Since the owners of the American Colony Hotel
claim is invalidated, the dependent claims also fall.
had successfully registered the trademark ‘Colony’, he granted an injunction,
preventing a new hotel calling itself Jerusalem Colony Hotel, Jerusalem
trademarks
Colony or Jerusalem Colony Residence, since the words ‘Jerusalem’ and
Recket Benckiser, manufacturer of Kalia laundry detergent, registered
‘hotel’ are generic in this context and there is a likelihood of confusion.
‘Kalia Al Economika’, which means bleach-free Kalia. It also attempted to
However, when the Tel Aviv District Court granted a temporary injunction
trademark ‘Al Economika’ (literally bleach-free), with the mark originally
against a restaurant calling itself the Hebrew equivalent of Tasty Grill
being allowed. It was subsequently cancelled, subject to appeal. When
Sun Restaurant, it was overruled by the Supreme Court. A chain of well-
Proctor & Gamble attempted to obtain a trademark for ‘Ace Al-Economika’,
respected Israeli grill restaurants opposed the mark because its restaurants
Recket Benckiser opposed the application. Th e commissioner ruled the
have names including the word Shemesh (sun), and it has two registered
term to be a generic adjective in the public domain, despite the fact that
graphic marks and one word mark. Th e Supreme Court considered such
Recket Benckiser was the long-time sole user of the phrase it had coined.
protection too broad and referred the case back to the district court.
When Sakal Duty Free Ltd., an Israel importer and distributor of consumer
goods attempted to trademark ‘Apollo’ for electrical goods, Krishpin
food packaging
Paamon, an importer who had adopted the mark 40 years earlier without Th e Tel Aviv District Court refused to grant a preliminary injunction
registering it, successfully opposed the registration since Sakal had
to Strauss Ice Creams Ltd., who claimed that the packaging of Nestle’s
www.worldipreview.com World Intellectual Property Review Digest 2009 99
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173