IAR CASE SUMMARY TEMPLATE
| Jurisdiction: | Republic of TURKEY / Ankara Second Civil Court of Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights |
| Subject Heading: | 1.F. Famous and well-known trademarks |
| Case Name and Citation: | DOLE v. DOLE and HURMET DOLE Docket No: 2010/61 Decision No: 2010/252 |
| Plaintiff: | DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC |
| Defendant: | TURKISH PATENT INSTITUTE HURMET CIKOLATA SEKERLEME GIDA SANAYI VE TICARET LIMITED SIRKETI ERSA SAKIZ SEKERLEME VE GIDA SANAYI TICARET LIMITED SIRKETI |
| Marks Associated with Goods/Services: | The Plaintiff’s trademark DOLE1 (essential part of the trade name of the Plaintiff) applied in classes 29, 30, 31. The defendant’s trademark (ERSA SAKIZ SEKERLEME VE GIDA SANAYI TICARET LIMITED SIRKETI) DOLE2 registered in classes 29, 30, 32. The Defendant’s trademark (HURMET CIKOLATA SEKERLEME GIDA SANAYI VE TICARET LIMITED SIRKETI) HURMET DOLE3 registered in class 30 |
| Nature of Case: | The plaintiff claims:
|
| Overview of Decision and Ruling: | The Court states that the decision of Higher Council is well-grounded since the trademarks are identical in visual, phonetic and semantic aspects and they cover the identical goods falling under same sub-classes. Moreover, since the invalidation of DOLE trademark in the name of ERSA SAKIZ SEKERLEME VE GIDA SANAYI TICARET LIMITED SIRKETI is requested within a separate case before Ankara First Civil Court of Intellectual and Industrial Property Rights, the Court did not give a verdict in this matter. Furthermore, the Court declined the invalidation request of HURMET DOLE trademark in the name of HURMET CIKOLATA SEKERLEME GIDA SANAYI VE TICARET LIMITED SIRKETI since the trademark owner has had a previous tail-series trademark which is expired upon non-renewal, however the latter HURMET DOLE trademark is registered within 2 years as of the expiration of this trademark and used with continuity. |
| Importance of Case: | This decision is important because it shows the significance of acquiring registration of a trademark and a latter trademark may not be deemed to be registrable despite the well-known status/ acquired distinctiveness etc. of the same since it is filed on a subsequent date |
| Images/Description: | |
| Contributor Firm: | Deris Patents and Trademarks Agency |
1 Application No: 2004 37359
2 Registration No: 2003 34924
3 Registration No: 2003 11042
Take Note
This document is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. You should not act or rely on any information in this document
without first seeking legal advice. This material is intended for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you
have any specific questions on any legal matter, you should consult a professional legal services provider.