• Opposition to Nipton in Classes 29&30 on basis of Lipton
Unilever PLC v. MoCI & Quick Oils pte Limited
Judgment No. 171/d/e/4 – 1424 AH, case No. 1652/1/q – 1424 AH

Upon review of the two trademarks “Lipton” and “Nipton”, both in Arabic and Latin characters, it has become evident to the court that both trademarks are closely similar visually and phonetically. This would cause confusion among average consumers as to the goods that bear both trademarks, especially that both trademarks are under the same class of goods. Therefore, registration of the applied-for trademark shall be refused. The argument that the applied-for is made distinct by a device of a knight holding a spear is of no effect, because the device is not the main element of the trademark. In this respect, decisive is the trademark itself, its reputation, and the impression it leaves on consumers’ minds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Refusal of HERO & device in Class 29 on basis of HERO
Union Food Company v. MoCI
Judgment No. 47/d/e/3 – 1426 AH, case No. 3847/1/q – 1425 AH

It is evident that the applied-for trademark is identical to the prior registered trademark in its main and distinctive element in the visual and phonetic aspect. In addition, the applied-for trademark shares the same class with the registered trademark and in respect of the same goods. This will cause harm to the owner of the registered trademark and cause confusion to the average consumer. The existence of additional different elements in either trademark is of no significance because what matters is the similarity of both trademarks in terms of the main elements, which would confuse the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Refusal of SAHIL LUBRICANTS & device in Class 4
Shell International v. MoCI
Judgment No. 31/d/e/5 – 1426 AH, case No. 2513/1/q – 1425 AH

When appraising two trademarks for similarity, focus should be on the points of similarity rather than those of difference. In this regard, what matters is the main and distinctive elements of the trademarks rather than the difference in other minor and insignificant elements. The yardstick of similarity is the appraisal of the average consumer who is neither a scrutinizing examiner nor a careless and heedless person. If an average consumer cannot differentiate between the two trademarks, registration shall be refused because the degree of similarity may confuse a consumer. On the other hand, if an average consumer can differentiate between the two trademarks, registration may be approved because the trademarks are not confusing. When applying these rules to the present case, it must be noted that the main elements of the trademark requested to be registered is the word “Sahil” which is similar to the plaintiff company trademark “Shell” in terms of the number of letters and the way they are written... Moreover, the fact that the letter “s” is written inside a distinctive shape as well as the inclusion of the word “Lubricants” is of no significance because this is considered minor data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Refusal of OHAYO in Class 9
Ace Electronics Limited v. MoCI
Judgment No. 54/d/e/2 – 1425 AH, case No. 1024/1/q – 1423 AH

Examination of the two trademarks shows that the word “OHAYO” is the essential element in both of them and the other elements in the applied-for trademark are not important enough to affect the characteristics of the trademark and qualify it to registration; since when comparing two trademarks for similarity what matters is the aspects of similarity not those of difference.