International trademark registration with entirely refused protection in the EU

Due to a likelihood of confusion on the part of the English­ speaking part of the public, International trademark registration No 1 494 022 was refused protection in respect of the European Union. The decision was enacted by EUIPO (European union intellectual property office) following an opposition filed by IPConsulting Ltd. on behalf of their client…


No likelihood of confusion between EUTM application ETHA and international trade mark registration Thea

EUIPO decided to reject the opposition against all the goods and services of EUTM application No 17 998 543 ‘ETHA’ due to the lack of likelihood of confusion with an earlier trade mark. Owner of the contested trademark is Fast Track EOOD represented by IPConsulting. The opposition was based on international trade mark registration designating…


BPO confirms that “от НАШЕТО” is similar to “от НАШЕТО семейство”

“Dimitar Madzharov – 2” EOOD, represented by the team of IP Consulting filed an opposition against the newly applied trademark, reg. № 141455 “от НАШЕТО” – combined. The Opposition division and the chair of the Bulgarian patent office (BPO) both upheld the opposition and denied the registration of the “от НАШЕТО” trademark, applied by “BONI…


Opposition, based on non-registered trade mark rejected as the opponent cannot show actual commercial use, but only intention for use

Bulgarian Patent Office (BPO) rejects an opposition based on a non-registered prior trade mark due to the fact that the opponent cannot fulfils the condition that the prior use should be related to commercial activity. The opposition was filed against trade mark application No 133612 – ТеРаПро (TeRaPro). The trade mark is represented by the…


Decision which clarifies the conditions for cancelation of trade mark registration, based on prior non-registered trade mark

Bulgarian Patent Office (BPO) has decided to reject a request for partial cancellation of a registered trademark because one the requirements under Art.38b, par.1 from Law on Marks and Geographical Indications is not met, namely the applied trademark witch is claimed to be in prior commercial use is not the same trademark as the already…