The plaintiff objected to the rejection of their trademark registration under class 35/A B, citing international recognition. However, the submitted phrase was deemed a motivational slogan lacking distinctiveness under Iraqi trademark law, which does not permit slogans as registrable trademarks. The Registrar’s decision was upheld as compliant with legal provisions.
The plaintiff objected to the TM Registrar’s acceptance of an opposition, arguing their mark’s distinctiveness and prior use. However, both marks share a similar appearance and concept, with minor lettering differences, increasing the likelihood of consumer confusion. The decision to reject the plaintiff’s mark was upheld due to the opposing mark’s prior registration and market presence.
The plaintiff objected to a new TM registration under class (32-B, C), citing similarities with their globally recognized TM in games and entertainment, potentially misleading consumers, especially children. The review found design and concept similarities likely to cause confusion, with the plaintiff’s TM enjoying global recognition, while the defendant’s lacked notoriety. The objection was upheld to protect the plaintiff’s rights.
The case examined potential consumer confusion between two TMs with similar designs—both single words in black rectangles, differing by one letter. The older TM, registered since 2018, holds market recognition, while the newer TM remains under registration. The similarity was deemed likely to mislead consumers, supporting the refusal of the new TM’s registration.
The plaintiff opposed a new TM registration, citing similarity to their 2018 registered TM for the same products. Both marks share a key word within a black rectangle, differing only slightly, which could confuse consumers. The plaintiff’s TM holds precedence and market recognition, while the new TM remains pending. Registration of the new TM was deemed likely to mislead consumers and infringe on the plaintiff’s rights.
The plaintiff contested the rejection of their TM under class (9-W), citing no similarity with the previously registered TM. The plaintiff’s TM, comprising three segments in Arabic and English, differs in syllables, appearance, and theme from the single-segment TM focused on a natural product. The review found no potential for consumer confusion and recommended approving the plaintiff’s TM registration.
The plaintiff contested the rejection of their appeal against a new TM, arguing no similarity with their registered TMs. However, the review found significant design and conceptual similarities, including shared elements and overlap in product class. It concluded that the plaintiff’s objection is valid, as the similarities could mislead consumers.
The plaintiff objected to the rejection of their appeal against a new TM, citing similarities in design and concept with their registered TMs under the same product class. The shared key term and design elements could mislead consumers and cause confusion. The objection is deemed justified, as the rejection lacks a valid legal basis.
The plaintiff objected to the rejection of their TM registration, arguing the name was not misleading as alleged. Review of TM laws confirmed no violation, as the name is a general descriptor, not country-specific, and is registered in other jurisdictions. The rejection was deemed legally unjustified, supporting the plaintiff’s application.
The plaintiff objected to a TM registration, citing potential consumer confusion with their globally recognized mark in children’s games. Analysis showed distinct differences in design, colors, and names between the marks, eliminating resemblance or risk of confusion. The plaintiff’s mark is widely known, while the defendant’s lacks recognition, justifying the TM registration.
The plaintiff objected to a TM registration, claiming similarity to their globally recognized mark in children’s entertainment. Analysis revealed significant differences in design, concept, and recognition, with the plaintiff’s mark enjoying global renown and the defendant’s lacking reputation. The marks were deemed distinct, eliminating confusion or rights infringement.
The classification of non-alcoholic malt beverages in category 32/A (beer) was reviewed and rejected, as beer is inherently recognized as alcoholic. Regulatory practices in Iraq, such as separate retail displays and age restrictions, further reduce confusion. Non-alcoholic malt beverages were likened to grape juice, which cannot be classified as alcoholic.
The plaintiff objected to a TM registration in class (32-B, C), citing similarity to their globally recognized mark in children’s entertainment. Review found distinct differences in design, concept, and colors between the marks, reducing the likelihood of confusion. The plaintiff’s mark retains protection and recognition, while the defendant’s registration poses no legal conflict.
The plaintiff objected to the TM Registrar’s rejection of their TM in class (9-W) due to alleged similarity with an existing TM. Upon review, the marks were found to differ significantly in meaning and context, with the rejected mark linked to cultural content and the other to a food product. Supported by international registrations and digital prominence, the rejected mark was deemed distinct and non-deceptive, warranting approval.
The plaintiff objected to the registration of a new TM, citing similarities with their established TMs that could confuse consumers. The marks share visual and conceptual similarities, particularly in key naming and design elements, making differentiation challenging. Given the plaintiff’s TM’s strong recognition and the new TM’s lack of market presence, it’s concluded that registration of the contested TM could mislead consumers and infringe the plaintiff’s rights.
The plaintiff objected to a new TM, citing similarities with their well-known TM, particularly in the core name, which could mislead consumers as both products share the same category. The TMs were found to have phonetic and visual resemblances, making differentiation challenging. It’s concluded that the new TM could cause confusion and unfair competition, supporting its cancellation.
The plaintiff objected to a new TM registration, citing phonetic and core name similarities with their well-known TM, potentially misleading consumers in the same product category. The plaintiff’s TM is distinctive, legally protected, and widely recognized locally and regionally. It’s concluded that registering the new TM could cause confusion, supporting its cancellation.
An objection was filed against the TM Registrar’s cancellation of a TM in category (3) due to similarity with a prior registered TM. The TMs showed significant resemblance, differing by only one letter, increasing the risk of consumer confusion. The earlier TM, registered since 2018, holds priority and wide recognition, supporting the cancellation decision.
A request was made to overturn the rejection of a TM registration in category (32-A-B-C) due to alleged conflicts with five existing TMs. Review revealed significant differences in wording and phonetics, with no potential for consumer confusion, particularly among the adult target audience. Discrepancies in reference numbers further supported annulling the rejection.
An objection was filed against the approval of a new TM in category 33, citing similarity to an established TM with a five-year precedence. The prior TM is widely recognized locally and internationally, while the new TM lacks reputation. The minor difference, a single additional letter, does not prevent potential consumer confusion, supporting the objection and revocation of the new TM’s approval.
A request was made to overturn the rejection of a TM registration in category (32-A-B-C) due to alleged conflicts with five existing TMs. Review revealed significant differences in wording and phonetics, with no potential for consumer confusion, particularly among the adult target audience. Discrepancies in reference numbers further supported annulling the rejection.
The plaintiff objected to the rejection of their TM in class (9-W) due to alleged similarity with an existing TM. The marks differ in meaning, phonetics, and context, with no evidence of consumer confusion. It’s recommended to approve the rejected mark as no substantial similarity was found.