Super Star Case
Case No 7927, 1, q, 1437H, between Awlad Badawi CO. vs. Ministry of Commerce Cancellation of Un-used trademark Registration made on the basis of cheating, fraud, misrepresentation and all forms of dishonesty is without right and prohibited under Shariah law.
Case Number:
(7927)
The case involves a trademark application for “AGE REVITALIZE” in Class 3. The Trademark Office refused the application, citing descriptiveness under Saudi trademark law.
The applicant appealed to the administrative court, seeking to overturn the Trademark Committee’s decision. The appeal argued that the mark “AGE REVITALIZE” is distinctive and not merely descriptive of the goods.
The refusal was based on Article 2 of the Saudi Trademark Law, similar to Article 3 of the GCC Trademark Law, which prohibits marks that are descriptive. The applicant argued compliance with Article 1, asserting that the mark is a distinctive combination of words.
Detailed Analysis of the Super Star Case
Background and Initial Refusal
In this case, the plaintiff brought an action against decision of MoCI for accepting and publishing trademark SUPER STAR. The argument of the opponent (plaintiff) was that the published mark is similar to the earlier registered trademark of opponent in the same class and that the MoCI decision of acceptance is in violation of Saudi trademark law. The opponent further argued that the defendant’s mark (SUPER STAR) violates its intellectual property rights in the mark (ALL STAR), while the MoCI accept the application despite the existence of former registration.
In support of its assertions over similarity, the opponent argued that the two marks are similar in the second syllable (STAR) and that the applicant has merely added a different word in the second part, which does not make the two marks distinguishable for an average unwary consumer. The argument of defendant was that the two marks are different since the applied mark is not a STAR rather a combination of SUPER, STAR and a device, which as makes is distinguishable from opponent’s mark.
The court ruled that the mark subject matter of opposition is acceptance of mark which consists of words SUPER STAR, in Latin letters and red star drawing, and the plaintiff’s mark which consists of the words ALL STAR in Latin letters, and pentagram drawing, inside a circle. Upon examination of the two trademarks, the court decided that the two marks are similar generally, and identical in the major element (star) drawing as well as their registration in the same class (25), therefor, this similarity will ultimately mislead the public and lead to confusion between the two marks, and such confusion will cause harm to the registered mark owner. Consequently, the court nullified the decision of MoCI.
Appeal to the Administrative Court
Our mission is to provide comprehensive, efficient, and tailored intellectual property services that meet the needs of our clients. We strive to support businesses in protecting their innovations and securing their intellectual property rights through expert legal representation and strategic advice. Our services encompass everything from IP registration and portfolio management to enforcement and dispute resolution, all delivered with a focus on quality, integrity, and client satisfaction. We aim to build lasting relationships with our clients by consistently delivering exceptional legal solutions.
Court’s Decision
The defendant (Ministry of Commerce and Investment) responded, asserting that the mark “AGE REVITALIZE” was clearly descriptive, indicating that the mark describes the goods as giving new life, energy, or activity. Thus, it contravened Article 2 of the law. The administrative court in Riyadh upheld the Trademark Committee’s decision, refusing registration of the mark “AGE REVITALIZE” due to its descriptiveness. The court stated that the word “REVITALIZE” undeniably describes the goods as giving life, energy, or activity, which is prohibited under Article 2 of the Trademark Law.