11/8/2022 0 Comments Baker mckenzie application![]() ![]()
The analysis depends on the nature and extent of the use. The Registrar emphasised that the mere fact that a company has been incorporated under a specific name means that such a sign would automatically count in the assessment for acquired distinctiveness through use. ![]() Therefore, the public would likely treat the Application Mark as a badge of origin. Ltd.” would send the message that the Applicant is a company known as “Floor Xpert”. Ltd.”, which is wholly descriptive and functional, consumers would focus on the words that appear in front of “Pte. #BAKER MCKENZIE APPLICATION FULL#Given that the only difference between the full corporate name and the Application Mark is the element “Pte. Specifically, the Registrar found that the full corporate name can serve as an identifier and badge of origin for goods or services in question. In respect of the full corporate name, the domain name and the social media handle, the Registrar found that these constituted use of the Application Mark as holding otherwise would not gel with commercial reality and the perspectives of the relevant public, which in this case included homeowners, businesses, contractors and interior designers. Use of the Application MarkĪt the ex parte hearing, the Registrar held that the evidence of use filed by the Applicant should not be disregarded on the premise that it did not show use of the Application Mark as filed. The social media handle Applicant subsequently requested for an ex parte hearing under rule 24(2)(b) of the Trade Mark Rules 2008 to overcome the Examiner’s objections.The Applicant’s stylised “Floor Xpert” mark “ ”.The Applicant’s full corporate name “FLOOR XPERT PTE.However, the objections were maintained on the basis that the evidence of use filed by the Applicant did not show use of the Application Mark, and instead only showed use of the following: In response, the Applicant had filed evidence that the mark had acquired distinctiveness through use. The Applicant’s initial application was met with little success, and was met with objections by the Examiner under Sections 7(1)(b) and (c) of the Act for being descriptive and non-distinctive in relation to the Application Services. #BAKER MCKENZIE APPLICATION SERIES#In this Trade Mark application, Floor Xpert Pte Ltd (“ Applicant”) sought to register the Application Mark, “ ”, as a series of trade marks in Class 37 for the services below (“ Application Services”):įloor polishing installing wood flooring floor maintenance services fitting of floor coverings maintenance and repair of flooring advisory services relating to flooring constructing decks tiling services application of floor coating materials installation services repair, maintenance and installation consultancy services. It should nevertheless also be emphasised that question of whether the use requirement has been satisfied remains a highly fact specific inquiry, and that while precedent cases may provide guiding principles, they do not necessarily provide definitive answers to every trade mark application.įor further information and to discuss what this development might mean for you, please get in touch with your usual Baker McKenzie contact. The decision highlights that the use of a mark in a brand owner’s corporate name, website and/or social media handle, may constitute use of a mark for the purposes of trade mark registration. The Registrar had further found that the Applicant Mark was used in relation to services which fell within the direct scope of or at least closely related to the items in the specification of the Applicant Mark. ![]() #BAKER MCKENZIE APPLICATION REGISTRATION#In doing so, the Registrar disagreed with earlier examination reports where the IPOS trade mark examiner (“ Examiner”) had refused registration of the Application Mark on the ground that the evidence of use filed by the applicant failed to show that the Application Mark has acquired sufficient distinctiveness through use pursuant to section 7(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1998 (the “Act”).Ĭrucially, the Registrar found that the use of the company's full corporate name, domain name and social media handle, notwithstanding minor differences with the Application Mark, constituted use of the Application Mark. SGIPOS 9, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) Principal Assistant Registrar (“ Registrar”) allowed the registration of the mark " " (“ Application Mark”) as a series of trade marks in Class 37. In the recent decision of In the matter of a trade mark application by Floor Xpert Pte. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |