Trademark infringement is the unapproved utilization of a trademark or
administration mark (or a significantly comparative imprint) on related
merchandise and ventures. The success of a claim to stop the infringement relies
on whether the respondent's utilization causes a probability of perplexity in
the reasonable prudent consumer.
At the point when an infringement happens, a trademark proprietor (the offended
party) may initiate a claim against the accused to avert further utilization of
the trademark and seek compensation for unfair use. The success of any case for
infringement depends upon the perplexity caused in the consumer due to the
similarity in the trademark. The mark need not be indistinguishable to one as of
now being used to encroach upon the proprietor's rights.
On the off chance that the proposed mark is comparative enough to the prior mark
to chance to confuse the normal buyer, its utilization may comprise infringement
if the administrations or merchandise on which the two marks are utilized are
identified with one another-that is, they share a similar market. The Corporate
Lawyers of Dubai witnessed a case in 2008 wherein judgment was issued by Dubai
Court of Cassation under case number 200 of 2008 wherein the trademark was too
similar to the one which was registered in several jurisdictions.
The case was registered to strike-off the trademark of the defendant in UAE
because the trademark was already issued in another country and in other
jurisdictions in the same field of industry. When the plaintiff sought
registration in UAE, the application was rejected due to an existent trademark
under the same name in UAE. The Court of First Instance rejected the case and
was presented before the Appeal Court wherein an expert was appointed and posted
his report; the Appeal court conferred the judgment of the lower Court.
Subsequently, the case was filed in appeal before the Court of Cassation.
In the Court of First Instance, the Defendant presented a certificate from the
Ministry of Economy of the State expressing that the business mark possessed by
the Plaintiff was struck off for non-renewal. The defendant objected the
acceptance of claim until the result of the Ministry of Economy on the concerned
application to register the mark. The Court of First Instance rejected the case.
The Appeal Court affirmed the principal case judgment.
The Plaintiff - the Appellant filed an appeal in cassation. Before the Court of
Cassation, the appellant argued that the judgment issued by other court
contravenes the law on the grounds that defendant marks were registered after
appellant's trademark was rejected due to the difference in the name. In
addition, the appellant has the right to strike off the mark as it creates
Court of Cassation in the light of Trademark Law of UAE held that the trademark
was a specific name chosen by the appellant to distinguish its products and in
order for such trademark to seek protection, it shall be registered before
competent authorities. The difference between the two imprints will not be made
by the letters or images or pictures or hues contained in the imprint, yet, the
general picture that engraved in the brain of customers paying little respect to
the components that the mark was created with.
The estimation of the distinction between the first mark and the other one
involved certainties subject to the watchfulness of the Trial Court.
Importantly, the court believed that the components in the brand name used by
the defendant did not create a vacuum and was not similar. Hence the appeal was