JURISDICTION REPORT: ISRAEL
WRANGLER TAKES CROCKER TO THE CLEANERS
Michael Factor JMB, Fa©tor & Co
Wrangler Apparel Corp. is a leading jeans manufacturer with billions of dollars in sales worldwide, and tens of millions of shekels’ worth of sales in Israel. For the past half-century, Wrangler has been using a W-shaped stitched pattern on the jeans’ back pockets.
Unfortunately, the sewn W symbol is registered as a trademark in Israel only for dungarees, short coats, and shirts having a Western style (see Israel Trademark 50,909).
Crocker, an Israeli jeans manufacturer, decorates the back pockets of its jeans with a sewn decoration that has a curved W shape.
Noting that Wrangler had filed previous aggressive actions against other jeans manufacturers Lucky and Kenvelo, and that a similar mark was used in a similar place, counsel for Wrangler claimed registered and well-known trademark infringement, passing off, unjust enrichment, dilution and confusing the public.
In its defence, Crocker pointed out that its jeans were on sale since 1984 and that its pocket design is different. Furthermore, Crocker obtained Israel trademarks (nos. 101,601 and 118,244) for its pocket stitching designs. Crocker argued that Wrangler was estopped from claiming trademark infringement since it had not taken advantage of the opportunity to oppose the mark and sufficient time had passed that the Crocker mark was itself established.
Wrangler conducted a survey of the jeans-wearing public aged 18 to 70 in face-to-face interviews, and then with a control group on the Internet, to establish that the mark was well known and to establish a case of passing off. Crocker’s counsel argued that the survey was meaningless since the survey and the control group were conducted differently.
In ruling, Judge Shaham first recited the basic law, philosophy and case law of the various torts, then applied his analysis of the specific case and went on to find trademark infringement, passing off and unjust enrichment, thereby deciding that there was no need to go into the issue of dilution. He also found the owner of Crocker, a co-defendant named Mr Levy, directly and personally responsible since he was intimately involved in the business.
Judge Shaham issued an injunction against Crocker using a W-like symbol, ordered Crocker to turn over its books for inspection to Wrangler, and awarded NIS 250,000 damages and NIS 100,000 legal costs.
Comments Wrangler’s registered trademark in Israel did not cover trousers in general nor jeans in particular. Tere was, therefore, no registered trademark infringement.
www.worldipreview.com
If a mark is sufficiently well-known to be considered a well-known mark under the Paris convention, one has grounds to sue for usage in complementary classes and for other goods. Te question here, which the judge seems to have missed, is whether Wrangler can have rights to different W-like signs, or only to those confusingly similar to its registered mark.
Te main marketer of Wrangler stated that the public would consider the W used by Crocker as an evolution of its mark. Tis is a problem. Well- known marks don’t evolve. It is perhaps worth noting that jeans giant Levi Strauss owns USPTO-registered trademarks for its arcuate (curved) stitching design, initially used in 1873, more than 70 years before Wrangler. It seems to me that Wrangler’s design is at least conceptually inspired by the Levi Strauss one as, no doubt, is Crocker’s. Te problem is that conceptual inspiration in fashion is what drives fashion.
I don’t think Wrangler deserves a monopoly on all letters W. Wrangler’s mark should be interpreted narrowly, as the Israel Trademark Office did when allowing Crocker’s mark.
Te control group of the survey that the judge used to establish a case of passing off considered a G design stitched on a rear pocket, not a W. I suggest that comparison to an omega or an M is more appropriate.
In the tort of passing off, the issue is the product as a whole, not passing off of a trademark or pocket stitching. Crocker also labelled its products ‘Crocker’.
Unjust enrichment should not be considered separately where there are registered trademarks. In my opinion, the most promising grounds for finding Crocker at fault was dilution. Unfortunately the judge did not bother relating to this.
Dr Michael Factor is a partner at JMB, Fa©tor & Co. He can be contacted at:
mfactor@israel-patents.co.il
World Intellectual Property Review November/December 2011 75
“THE QUESTION HERE, WHICH THE JUDGE SEEMS TO HAVE MISSED, IS WHETHER WRANGLER CAN HAVE RIGHTS TO DIFFERENT WAVY LINE, W-LIKE SIGNS.”
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