关于知识产权 知识产权培训 树立尊重知识产权的风尚 知识产权外联 部门知识产权 知识产权和热点议题 特定领域知识产权 专利和技术信息 商标信息 工业品外观设计信息 地理标志信息 植物品种信息(UPOV) 知识产权法律、条约和判决 知识产权资源 知识产权报告 专利保护 商标保护 工业品外观设计保护 地理标志保护 植物品种保护(UPOV) 知识产权争议解决 知识产权局业务解决方案 知识产权服务缴费 谈判与决策 发展合作 创新支持 公私伙伴关系 人工智能工具和服务 组织简介 与产权组织合作 问责制 专利 商标 工业品外观设计 地理标志 版权 商业秘密 WIPO学院 讲习班和研讨会 知识产权执法 WIPO ALERT 宣传 世界知识产权日 WIPO杂志 案例研究和成功故事 知识产权新闻 产权组织奖 企业 高校 土著人民 司法机构 遗传资源、传统知识和传统文化表现形式 经济学 性别平等 全球卫生 气候变化 竞争政策 可持续发展目标 前沿技术 移动应用 体育 旅游 PATENTSCOPE 专利分析 国际专利分类 ARDI - 研究促进创新 ASPI - 专业化专利信息 全球品牌数据库 马德里监视器 Article 6ter Express数据库 尼斯分类 维也纳分类 全球外观设计数据库 国际外观设计公报 Hague Express数据库 洛迦诺分类 Lisbon Express数据库 全球品牌数据库地理标志信息 PLUTO植物品种数据库 GENIE数据库 产权组织管理的条约 WIPO Lex - 知识产权法律、条约和判决 产权组织标准 知识产权统计 WIPO Pearl(术语) 产权组织出版物 国家知识产权概况 产权组织知识中心 产权组织技术趋势 全球创新指数 世界知识产权报告 PCT - 国际专利体系 ePCT 布达佩斯 - 国际微生物保藏体系 马德里 - 国际商标体系 eMadrid 第六条之三(徽章、旗帜、国徽) 海牙 - 国际外观设计体系 eHague 里斯本 - 国际地理标志体系 eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange 调解 仲裁 专家裁决 域名争议 检索和审查集中式接入(CASE) 数字查询服务(DAS) WIPO Pay 产权组织往来账户 产权组织各大会 常设委员会 会议日历 WIPO Webcast 产权组织正式文件 发展议程 技术援助 知识产权培训机构 COVID-19支持 国家知识产权战略 政策和立法咨询 合作枢纽 技术与创新支持中心(TISC) 技术转移 发明人援助计划(IAP) WIPO GREEN 产权组织的PAT-INFORMED 无障碍图书联合会 产权组织服务创作者 WIPO Translate 语音转文字 分类助手 成员国 观察员 总干事 部门活动 驻外办事处 职位空缺 采购 成果和预算 财务报告 监督
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
法律 条约 判决 按管辖区浏览

WIPO Lex

WIPOLEX017-j

返回

Court of First Instance, Amman, Jordan [2008]: Talhowni and Aqeel Corporation v Tashera Company



This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2023 WIPO IP Judges Forum.

Session 6: Rules of Evidence in Intellectual Property Litigation

Court of First Instance, Amman, Jordan [2008]: Talhowni and Aqeel Corporation v Tashera Company

Date of judgment: May 20, 2008
Issuing authority: Amman Court of First Instance
Level of the issuing authority: First Instance
Type of procedure: Judicial (Civin( �br> Subject matter: Trademarks
Plaintiff: Talhowni and Aqeel Corporation
Defendant: Tashera Company
Keywords: Trademark, Unfair competition

Basic facts: The plaintiff, Talhowni and Aqeel Corporation, has used the trademark CAFÉ DU ROI since 1985. The trademark is registered under class 30. On October 31, 2005, the defendant, Tashera Company, filed to register a trademark of extreme similarity in pronunciation and appearance to the original trademark of the plaintiff. After the filing, registration was published in Jordan’s official gazette as CAFÉ DES ROIS; NO 83361 under class 42. The plaintiff submitted an objection to the defendant’s trademark. Upon acceptance of the objection by the Industrial Property Protection Directorate/Registrar of Trademark at the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Supply, the defendant was informed. Due to the lack of response from the defendant, the filing to register the trademark was dropped on March 12, 2007. On November 11, 2007, the plaintiff sent a legal warning to the defendant, demanding they remove a sign that uses the CAFÉ DES ROIS mark to identify a commercial establishment, as well as cease use of the trademark in their publications, inside their company, and in any promotional materials related to their company.

The defendant was informed of the legal warning through a supervising employee on November 6, 2009. As the owner of the trademark CAFÉ DU ROI, the plaintiff accused the defendant of acts of unfair competition. In addition, the defendant’s previous actions were alleged to cause confusion with the plaintiff’s establishment, its service, and its activities, thereby discrediting the service of the plaintiff.

Held: Based on its similarity to the plaintiff’s registered trademark (CAFÉ DU ROI), the Court barred the defendant from using the trademark CAFÉ DES ROIS in any shape or form, and ordered the defendant to remove the sign that uses this trademark to identify a commercial store.

Relevant holdings in relation to rules of evidence in intellectual property litigation: The plaintiff submitted information, represented by its certificate (Company Certification of Registration) proving its registration in the Jordanian Companies Register, as well as a trademark registration certificate for the CAFÉ DU ROI mark, demonstrating its registration in the name of the plaintiff in the Jordanian Trademark Register.

In addition, the plaintiff’s trademark certificate has been renewed and its registration is valid in Class 30, and a certificate issued by the Trademark Registrar proves that the defendant has applied to register a mark that is similar to the plaintiff’s mark. The plaintiff objected to this application, and the Trademark Registrar considered the defendant to have abandoned its application by not submitting a response statement to the objection.

The plaintiff submitted a judicial notice warning the defendant of the necessity of removing the trademark used to identify the defendant’s store. Since the use of the trademark constitutes an imitation of the plaintiff’s trademark, the judicial notice also urged the necessity of the defendant refraining from using the mark in advertising publications and anything else that distinguishes its service. The plaintiff also submitted pictures of the defendant’s publications and promotional leaflets to prove use of a trademark similar to the plaintiff’s trademark. The Court denied authorization for the technical expertise evaluation required to assess the plaintiff’s damages, citing lack of legal evidence proving the damage.

The defendant submitted a copy of its application to the Trademark Registrar at the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Supply to register a trademark similar (in wording and form) to the plaintiff’s trademark in Class 42, and a copy of the publication in Official Gazette No. 333 of the initial approval to register this trademark (CAFÉ DES ROIS) in the name of the defendant. However, the Court did not take this evidence into account, because the plaintiff submitted an objection to the registration of the defendant’s trademark CAFÉ DES ROIS with the Registrar of Trademarks at the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Supply, which in turn accepted the objection. The defendant was notified of the objection, and as a result of its failure to respond, the Trademark Registrar decided to consider the defendant to have abandoned its application to register the mark similar to the plaintiff’s mark. Accordingly, this evidence does not prove any right for the defendant to use the CAFÉ DES ROIS mark.

Relevant legislation:
Civil Code No. 43 of 1976
Law No. 33 of 1952 on Trademarks
Law No. 15 of 2000 on Unfair Competition and Trade Secrets