Russian chamber: similar ‘non-protectable elements’ should not affect similar ‘word elements’
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Russian chamber: similar ‘non-protectable elements’ should not affect similar ‘word elements’

Sponsored by

gorodissky-400px.png
mae-mu-iz0lrt1khgm-unsplash.jpg

Vladimir Biriulin of Gorodissky & Partners looks at how the Chamber of Patent Disputes in Russia ruled on a trademark dispute concerning the Knoppers Sandwich

The case on trademark application No. 2019726844, filed on June 5 2019, was recently considered by the Chamber of Patent Disputes. The chamber cancelled the decision of the examiner and registered the trademark in respect of goods in Class 30.

The examiner had earlier refused registration because according to him, the word element ‘Sandwich’ was not protectable for the claimed goods, as it pointed to the properties of the goods and was not distinguishable. The examiner also pointed out that the claimed designation was confusingly similar to an earlier filed trademark application, with priority of January 15 2019, in respect of the same goods in Class 30 (application No. 2019700838).


 

8ac9e567190149dcab2977cdb24437e0
Figure 1: Knoppers Sandwich

   

The applicant agreed that the word element of ‘Sandwich’ can be disclaimed but did not agree with the conclusion of the patent office telling him that the claimed designation and the cited trademark were confusingly similar. The applicant argued that the overall impression made by the compared designations was remarkably different.

Besides, phonetic similarity is conditioned by the inclusion of the word element ‘Sandwich’ in the compared designations, while the conclusion on similarity of the word elements should not be made on the basis of non-protectable elements.

The Chamber of Patent Disputes considered the applicant’s argument and pointed out that the cited designation is combined, as it consists of the words ‘Dark Chocolate’ and ‘Selected Fruits’ in small font, located in the background. This was in addition to the word element ‘Sandwich’ in big font occupying a central position in the designation with some figurative elements such as fragments of a peach, raspberries and a stylised image of a cross section of a bonbon. Protection was sought for Class 30.

The claimed designation was a word element ‘Knoppers Sandwich’, in which the word element ‘Sandwich’ is disclaimed. Thus, the word element ‘Knoppers’ plays the individualising role in the claimed designation.

The cited combined designation features the word element ‘Sandwich’ that dominates in the cited designation, as well as smaller word elements ‘Dark Chocolate’ and ‘Selected Fruits’.

The Chamber of Patent Disputes took into account the fact that on the date of considering the appeal, there had been a refusal of registration issued in respect of the cited designation on application No. 2019700838 (see the image above).

The official action of refusal had been based on Article 1483 of the Civil Code because non-protectable elements dominated in the designation, i.e. naturalistic images of confectionary, small fruits, word elements  ‘Dark Chocolate’ and ‘Selected Fruits’ and yet another word element ‘Sandwich’.

When similarity of word elements is examined, the similarity of ‘strong’ word elements should be taken into account, i.e. words capable to individualise the goods of the manufacturer and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer from those of another manufacturer. Comparison of the designations in question shows that only the word element ‘Sandwich’ is the same in the compared designations, however both are disclaimed, in the applied and the cited designations. In the absence of other similar characteristics, it is not possible to assert their similarity.

When examining the basic individualising element of the claimed designation, i.e. the word element ‘Knoppers’, one should state that there is not even a single element of similarity (phonetic, semantic or graphic).

The general visual impression made by the compared designations is different too, because the claimed designation is a word in standard font without any graphic elaboration. The cited designation is combined and includes a composition of word elements in different font and also some graphic element. 

Hence, despite presence of the same element ‘Sandwich’ in the compared designations they are non associated with each other in general because there is a number of individualising elements. Thus granting protection on application No. 2019726844 is in accordance with the law and protection may be granted  in respect of all goods in Class 30 with the inclusion of the word ‘Sandwich’ as an unprotected element.

Incidentally, the applicant could have avoided banding arguments with the examiner and the chamber, if he had coined the word ‘Sandwitch’ and thus added some enigmatic tinge to the designation.

 

Vladimir Biriulin

Partner, Gorodissky & Partners

E: biriulinv@gorodissky.ru

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

An intimate understanding of a client’s sector is essential to winning new business, a survey of over 28,000 corporate counsel reveals
Counsel say a Federal Circuit ruling on the obviousness test for design patents may increase the time IP owners spend defending their rights
While the INTA Annual Meeting is over for another year, here are a few things Managing IP learned after attending IP’s biggest party
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Four sources reveal which tools they have been using – or building – to help them with a range of tasks from invention generation to claim sufficiency
Managing IP reveals Wednesday's highlights, including a discussion on how AI is helping lawyers improve their "gut instinct" trademark decisions
Managing IP reveals Tuesday’s highlights, including an illuminating discussion celebrating women in the workplace and the challenges that remain
Dana Northcott, INTA’s 2024 president and associate general counsel for Amazon's IP team, talks about her work for the association
Managing IP reveals highlights from the INTA Annual Meeting, including law firms’ diversity and ESG concerns and a new beginning for a Chinese firm
Firms with a broad geographic reach are more likely to win work, especially from global companies with high turnovers, according to survey data of nearly 29,000 corporate counsel
Gift this article