A dispute between two companies to use the name of an Indian city in their brand

The Federal Supreme Court referred a dispute between two companies on a trademark bearing the name of a famous city in India, to the Court of Appeal for its consideration again, as it overturned a ruling that canceled the decision of the Trademarks Committee in the Ministry of Economy to register the brand to one of the two opponents.

A company had filed a lawsuit in which they had a restaurant, as well as the authority to register the brands, demanding the ruling to cancel the decision of the Trademarks Committee to register a brand in the name of the defendant, for its similarity with its brand.

The first instance court ruled the refusal of the lawsuit, then the Court of Appeal decided to refuse to register the disputed brand of the defendant, so the Ministry of Economy and the defendant obeyed, explaining that the ruling violated the law on a lawsuit previously used the prosecutor of the mark on the subject of the dispute, which is not the decisive element in the case, stressing that it does not There is a similarity between the two signs, in light of the fact that the common element between them is a word, which is a geographical name for a famous country in India, which is not permissible to monopolize or monopolize it, but the ruling of the appeal did not address this defense, which requires its veto.

The Federal Supreme Court supported the appeal, explaining that the legislator was licensed to the competent administrative authority with its discretionary authority to refuse to register any identical or similar trademark of a sign previously registered on the same products or services or for products or other similar services, and that the legislator is licensed for the competent authority Failure to register any trademark bearing geographical names and data if its use would mislead the consumer with the origin of the goods or services or their source, but it is not permissible to monopolize a geographical name and monopolize it for a specific sign if this name is attributed to a famous and common country, and its use would not be misleading the consumer Normal or stimulating his clothing.

She pointed out that the appeal ruling was based on what he decreed preceded the prosecutor’s predetermination of the mark on the subject of the dispute, while the decision of the jurisdiction was built, according to the two signs and the lack of similarity, and that the previously used was not an exclusive of the conflict, in addition to that it is not permissible to jump to the issue of preceding use Except after verifying the extent of the similarity between the two signs, which was not discussed by the ruling of the appeal, nor did the defense of the essential restaurant, which is not faced since the beginning of the lawsuit, has not faced the common element between the two signs is a geographical name for a famous Indian city, it is not permissible to monopolize or monopolize it and take it an excuse for the similarity between the two signs And he was satisfied with this by referring to the report of the expert in the case without achieving the defense of the advanced restaurant, which is marred by the ruling on the appeal of the deficiency in the reasoning and corruption in reasoning and it must be vetoed without the need to discuss the rest of the reasons for the appeal, provided that it is with the referral veto.

• A first -class court ruled to reject the case … and “appeal” refused to register the brand.