• Refusal of PWS in Class 36 on basis of PWC in class 36
PWS Holding PLC v. MoCI Judgment No. 22/d/e/4 – 1426 AH, case No. 1751/1/q – 1425 AH

Whereas the two trademarks, “PWS” and “PWC”, will be under the same class and whereas they are confusingly similar to each other; the Circuit decides to dismiss the appeal due to the conclusion that that the appealed decision has been made on sound legal bases. The argument that the prior registered trademark owner provides consultation services only while the appellant provides related services and information is refuted by the fact that the class of services is the same, the services of both parties are interlinked and are covered by the same class. As for the argument that the appellant services are only handled after careful verification because the involved consumers are those who are extremely wealthy, can hardly be evidenced; and even if this is the case, it is not sufficient to withstand the application of the law provisions and the established international norms and court judgments.

• Opposition to LUCENT in Class 14 on basis of LUCENT in multiple classes Lucent Technologies v. MoCI & Pala International Limited
Judgment No. 6/d/e/4 – 1425 AH, case No. 1673/1/q – 1423 AH

Having reviewed the two trademarks, it appeared that both of them comprise the same word “LUCENT”. Nevertheless, the applicant placed a distinctive drawing above its word mark and filed it under Class 14 whereas the opponent trademark is registered under several classes, none of which was Class 14. Applying the abovementioned rule to these two trademarks, it becomes evident that they will be placed on products under different classes. Therefore, the condition of class identity is present. It is a established principle that the difference of classes permits registration because there is no room for confusion between the two trademarks, which is the reason for prohibition of registration. Moreover, the applicant’s trademark has been distinguished by the device placed above the word mark and has been registered in the opponent’s country under Class 14. In addition, it has not been proven that the plaintiff trademark is well known. Therefore, the Circuit decides to dismiss the case because it does not rely on sound basis.