A trademark dispute was adjudicated by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), in which “Фаст Трак” ЕООД was involved as an opponent, represented by IP Consulting. The dispute arrised over European Union Trademark (EUTM) application No. 18 408 531 for the figurative mark “ERTHA.” The claim of the opponent, supported by IP Consulting was…
IP Consulting Ltd. represented their client, “бпо България” ЕООД, in the EUIPO Opposition No B 3 189 913. The case involved an opposition filed by Stichting BDO against the European Union trade mark application No 18 790 922 (figurative mark), which was based on the earlier European Union trade mark registration No 2 419 778…
IP Consulting Ltd. represented Phiacademy Doo Beograd in the EUIPO Opposition No B 3 181 492. The case involved an opposition filed by Phiacademy Doo Beograd against the European Union trade mark application No 18 722 371 (figurative mark), which was based on the earlier international trade mark registration designating Ireland No 1 511 559…
THE CASE The company LIFY COSMETICS JSC filed on July 22, 2021, the application for registration No 4787286 relating to the trademark REVELE (word trademark in France). REVUELE Ltd., Bulgaria, a client of IP Consulting Ltd., filed an Opposition against all the goods and services in Class 3 of the said trademark before the National…
THE CASE Cooperation Panda, Corporation, Tsarigradsko Shose Blvd 139, 1784 Sofia, Bulgaria (applicant), represented by IP Consulting Ltd.,(European trademark attorneys) filed a request for revocation of EUTM (European Union trademark) No 9 496 911 (figurative mark) before the EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office). The request is directed against all the goods covered by the…
THE CASE Елби 70 АД (applicant), represented by Ip Consulting Ltd.,(professional representative) filed a request for a declaration of invalidity against European Union trade mark No 1 755 511 COCOCARE (word mark) (the EUTM), filed on 13/07/2000 and registered on 30/04/2002. SUMMARY OF THE PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS The applicant argues that the contested mark is composed…
The case An opposition has been filed with ref. No 70111020/24.01.2019, according to the opponent there is visual, phonetic and semantic similarity between the earlier mark “Б. П. бирени’ and the trademark applied for, as the signs contain common distinctive and dominant elements, namely ‘пръчици’ and ‘бирени’. The applicant of the opposed mark ИНТЕРМЕС Ltd….
Absolute grounds for refusal of registration of a trademark are laid down in Art. 11, par.1 of the Law on Marks and Geographical Indications (LMGI). It is characteristic of the absolute grounds for refusal of registration that they affect the ability of the sign applied for to be a trademark at all. They are…
The opponent is the holder of an earlier national registration of the verbal mark ‘HOLLESTA ХОЛЛЕСТА’, registered for goods in Class 5 – ‘pharmaceutical products’. The opposition was filed against a misleadingly similar trademark applied for registration also for pharmaceutical products, namely the trademark “CHOLESTIN ХОЛЕСТИН” – verbal. Goods and services of the conflicting trademarks…
THE CASE Velikov & CO OOD, Bulgaria, represented by IP Consulting Ltd., filed an Opposition against all the goods and services in Classes 29 and 31 of EUTM Application No 17 887 969 (figurative mark). The opposition is based on inter alia, European Union trade mark registration No 7 559 107, (figurative mark). After considering…
