Cabinet Chaillot - Jurinea Action for Infringement Jurinea Form 1138 Parties to the case TATI (Mark) versus THATY (Mark) 12-05-01, CA de Paris (Appeal) Domain --- Issue of law Result Proceedings --- First assignation is irregular Yes --- Second assignation for regularization Yes Foreclosure by tolerance No --- Use of the mark during 5 years No Forfaiture of the rights derived from the mark No --- Interest to act for forfeiture for non identical products No --- Proof with the mark appearing Yes --- Proof with certain date Yes --- Use as a mark Yes --- Serious use of the mark Yes --- Uninterrupted 5-year period of non use No Speciality of goods and/or services --- Identity of goods or services ------ Perfumes - and - Perfumes Yes Comparaison of the signs --- Reproduction as such No --- Same amount of syllables Yes --- Visual similitude Yes --- Phonetic identity Yes --- Likelihood of confusion Yes Famous marks / well-known marks Yes --- Knowledge of the mark by a main part of the public in France Yes --- Ancient use of the trade mark Yes --- Use of a similar sign forbidden Yes Infringement of the mark Yes --- Mark application Yes Enacting terms: Invalidation of the mark Yes Damages 6,097 Euros Order on the ground of Art 700 NCPC 6,097 Euros Dismiss of the appeal Non Set aside of the contested decision Partly Publication(s): PIBD 2002, Ref.: 738, III, 134 10-26-99, TGI de Paris (First Instance) Domain --- Issue of law Result Fraudulent filing of the mark No --- Mala fide No --- Malicious filing No Proceedings --- First assignation is irregular Yes --- Second assignation for regularization Yes Foreclosure by tolerance No --- Mark registered more than 5 years before Yes --- 5-years period since the law of 1991 No Forfaiture of the rights derived from the mark Yes --- Proof with certain date No --- Proof with the mark appearing No --- Use as a mark No --- Failure to exploit the mark ------ Perfumes ------ Substance for laundry use ------ Toothpast Yes --- Uninterrupted 5-year period of non use Yes --- Partial forfeiture ------ Perfumes ------ Substance for laundry use ------ Toothpast Yes Speciality of goods and/or services --- Identity of goods or services ------ Perfumes - and - Beauty preparations Yes Comparaison of the signs --- Same amount of syllables Yes --- Visual similitude Yes --- Phonetic identity Yes --- Inoperative addition of a letter Yes --- Substitution of an ineffective letter Yes --- Almost servile reproduction Yes Infringement of the mark Yes --- Mark application Yes Enacting terms: Invalidation of the mark Partly Damages 3,811 Euros Dismiss of the appeal Non Publication(s): PIBD 2000, Ref.: 696, III, 199

Last updating : 12-10-06
Copyright © Cabinet Chaillot 1997 - 2004