Trademarks on products and services are very important. Trademarks are meant to give products and services uniqueness and character. As a trademark choice, merchants really want to have a good name, easy to remember, easy to talk and good at listening. The ease of use and uniqueness of a trademark is designed to appeal to the products or services offered by consumers. Trademarks such as "Gucci", "Louis Vuitton", "Cartier" and "Salvatore Ferragamo" are popular trademarks for young and wealthy women. Carrying "Louis Vuitton", "Cartier" or "Gucci" handbags when shopping at the mall is definitely a reputation of some societies and a predicate that rich people can get from it.
Therefore, for businessmen, trademarks are an important thing. Trademarks can be interpreted in many ways, depending on where they are viewed. Therefore, it is common for trademarks to create legal conflicts. Trademarks can make a person rich and wealthy, but on the contrary it can also downgrade and make a person very poor.
A conflict with a commercial court is one of the examples of a person filing a lawsuit against another party because the person believes that his/her trademark has been infringed by the other party, thereby damaging the product or service provided by the trademark. Said the person. In many cases, the grounds for litigation are based on the "fundamental or complete similarity" between a product and another. But in fact, it is difficult to determine whether a particular trademark is similar to another trademark.
What are the basic elements of "similarity"? Is the trademark "Burger King", "Burger Kids" or "Burger Queen" similar? The explanation of Mark No. 6 of Decree No. 6 states that "similarity" means that there is a strong element between another mark, which gives an impression of shape/form, position or sound similarity.
So the question is whether "King Burger King" is similar to "Hamburger Child" or "Queen of Burgers"? Let's compare it briefly. If we look at these three trademarks, then the powerful elements of the trademark are "king", "child" and "Queen". Are the shapes/sounds or placements or definitions of these trademarks similar? In short, obviously not the case. If one party wishes to use the trademark "Queen of Burgers" or "Hamburger Kids", is this allowed if the "Hamburger King" party has not yet been registered? Legitimately, any party using "Burger Queen" or "Burger Kids" will not cause any problems, right? Since all three contain different definitions, there is no similarity at all.
However, based on the argument that "there is no integrity", another argument may arise. If any other party uses the "Queen of Burgers" or "Hamburger Kids" associated with the "Hamburger" party, then the "Hamburger King" party with 11.100 outlets in the United States of America and 66 other countries may object. Although we know that the word "burger" is a common word that cannot be owned by either party. However, "Burger King" may think that the idea of using the name/name of the founder is around them. Therefore, it is not allowed to follow any word of "Hamburger" in any shape/form. We are all likely to be confused with elements of fundamental similarity.
All of its assessments are based on subjective evaluations. For trademarks filed at the Trademark Office, the role of the Trademark Office in determining basic similarities is very prominent. The trademark consists of the words "CaféSantaiMalam Sepanjang Tahun" and can be the same as "CaféSantai" because the word "Santai" will be regarded as the most important element, so the effect as the application can be rejected by the Trademark Office.
There is no difference between the Commercial Court and the Supreme Court in judging the basic similarities. For example, the Supreme Court's decision No. 04 / K / N / HAKI / 2002 on the "Berger Seidle" trademark has no similarities to the "Berger" trademark and the "Berger Master" trademark. However, in the Supreme Court Decree No. 039 / K / HAKI / 2003, the "Cannonmate" trademark is similar to the "Cannon" trademark.
The existence of multiple interpretations in determining basic similarities does not simplify the legal practitioner and does not make it possible for the trademark examiner or judge dealing with the above application/case to take personal advantage. Often, dissimilar trademarks are rejected and are expected to receive compensation. This is easy to happen because there is no legal uniformity in determining the similarity of trademarks.
Since then, legal practitioners have hoped that other law enforcement officials will follow good Supreme Court decisions in order to eliminate the confusion of assessing basic similarities.
Orignal From: Trademarks are confused with "basic similarities"
No comments:
Post a Comment