ISRAEL
ISRAEL
In this specific case, the Supreme Court found that while the first two conditions may have been proved before the District Court, the third condition was not fulfilled.
Regarding the third condition, the court found that the university did not promote the infringement, it did not solicit students to commit such acts of infringement and did not encourage them to do so. Its only contribution to the act was that it did not prevent the infringement nor actively stop the infringement which took place on its premises. Te court found that such an omission does not constitute liability for infringement, saying that it is doubtful whether the university can effectively control the actions of the students on its premises and that imposing such a liability is impossible and would burden the university with absurd costs.
Tis judgment of the Supreme Court is a very important one and although the university was found not to contribute to the infringement in this case, applying the doctrine in copyright law would make it possible to impose liability for contributory infringement on other parties in appropriate cases and obtain a more efficient enforcement of copyright against infringers.
The Madrid Protocol
Israel decided to join the Madrid Protocol a decade ago and enacted the necessary amendment to its Trademark Ordinance as early as 2003. The amendments did not come into force until September 2010, when a notice was issued by the Minister of Justice. Of more than 80 members of the Madrid Protocol, only seven countries operate a paperless system and the Israeli Trademark Office’s (ILPTO’s) insistence on making all the necessary preparations for developing such a system caused most of the delay.
Now that the system has been up and running for more than a year, senior officials at the ILPTO report that it is a big success, while the paperless system operates smoothly and allows the office to handle a large number of international trademark applications designating Israel.
According to data supplied by the ILPTO, around 40 percent of the total number of trademark applications handled by the ILPTO are international applications filed by foreign applicants through the World Intellectual Property Organization, designating Israel. Tis is a very high percentage achieved in a very short time.
This means that a large portion of the foreign applicants who filed national applications in Israel in the past are now using the Madrid Protocol system instead.
162 World Intellectual Property Review e-Digest 2012
Te implementation of the Madrid Protocol system introduced the multi- class application into the Israeli system, allowing applicants to include any number of classes in one application. As a result of the multi-class system, there are fewer applications, but the ILPTO reports a substantial increase in the total number of classes included in the applications filed since the implementation of the Madrid Protocol system.
Te ILPTO reports an increase in its workload, but presently applications are being examined on average within 12 months of filing.
Slogans
Te former registrar of trademarks formed a very strict approach to whether a slogan is eligible for registration as a trademark. He refused the registration of many slogans and even issued a circular practice letter in which he ruled that, in general, a slogan is to be considered to lack distinctive character and will be eligible for registration only if it acquired distinctiveness as a result of use.
In December 2011, the Tel Aviv District Court ruled in an appeal against the registrar’s refusal to accept a slogan for registration, that the eligibility of a slogan should be examined in the same manner that any other mark is examined, without any a priori assumption regarding its basic lack of distinctive character.
Following this decision, the new registrar issued a circular practice letter ordering the previous policy to be cancelled in view of the District Court ruling. Tis may have an influence on the chances of obtaining a registration for slogans in Israel, which was almost impossible under the previous registrar.
Nahum Gabrieli is a partner at Seligsohn Gabrieli & Co. He can be contacted at:
nahum@sgl.co.il
Nahum Gabrieli specialises in litigation of all fields of IP. His expertise is infringement and enforcement cases before the court and litigation before the registrar of trademarks and designs. He is also involved in litigation of patent infringement and patent opposition proceedings before the registrar. Gabrieli has experience in advising owners of famous brands and large portfolios of trademarks on various trademarks issues. He also represents authors in copyright matters.
www.worldipreview.com
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 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220 |
Page 221 |
Page 222 |
Page 223 |
Page 224 |
Page 225 |
Page 226 |
Page 227 |
Page 228 |
Page 229 |
Page 230 |
Page 231 |
Page 232 |
Page 233 |
Page 234 |
Page 235 |
Page 236 |
Page 237 |
Page 238 |
Page 239 |
Page 240 |
Page 241 |
Page 242 |
Page 243 |
Page 244 |
Page 245 |
Page 246 |
Page 247 |
Page 248 |
Page 249 |
Page 250 |
Page 251 |
Page 252 |
Page 253 |
Page 254 |
Page 255 |
Page 256 |
Page 257 |
Page 258 |
Page 259 |
Page 260 |
Page 261 |
Page 262 |
Page 263 |
Page 264 |
Page 265 |
Page 266 |
Page 267 |
Page 268 |
Page 269 |
Page 270 |
Page 271