Verdict against First Company for Import _ Export in Egypt (En).pdf

Following the successes achieved daily by Mr. Youssef Hafez office for the protection of its clients regarding intellectual property and trademark verdict on the seizure for the brand Adidas.

HARVEST

A verdict in favour of one of  our client companies in the name of  HARVEST FOODS  (An Egypt joint stock company) versus a Saudi Company, Said Ben Zaqar and Partners, with respect to a dispute over the ownership of a trademark before the commercial court

Whereas, there was a court dispute between Harvest Foods company and a Saudi Company (Said Ben Zaqar & Partners) over the ownership of the trademark HARVEST in A.R.E, where our client company lodged the case No. 2291 / 2001, Commercial South of Cairo, in which it requested to nullify the registration of the mark HARVEST, registered under No. 97298, category 29 (Preserved Foods) and requested the registration of mark No.121190 in its name.

After deliberation of the case the court delegated an expert from the Ministry of justice.

The expert concluded his report by our Client Company's right (HARVEST FOODS) to register its mark No. 121190 (HARVEST) as well as to the necessity of canceling the mark registered in the name of the Saudi Company under No. 97298 (HARVEST) and the court decided that.

The Saudi Company appealed against the previous verdict and the court delegated another expert, who submitted a report of the same conclusions as the first expert.

HARVEST

After deliberation of the case before the court of appeal the court decided to retain the case for judgment in session of 18.5.2009.

The appeal verdict was issued to the effect that the one, who registers a trademark becomes its owner when this registration is accompanied by use during the five years following registration because use without registration is the only reference to decide who is the owner.

Whereas, the Respondent Company in the appeal case has the priority in using the mark HARVEST FOODS in a quiet, stable and continuous manner under the No. 121190 and that it has used  it as its trade name since 1999 and that was published in the media without challenge from the Claimant Company, therefore the court decides to reject the appeal and uphold the appealed verdict by accepting the registration of the mark HARVEST FOODS  and cancel the registration of the mark HARVEST, owned by the Saudi Company.

  

TEIBESTY

 

A verdict  in favour of our clients pertinent a dispute over the ownership of a trademark in the cases Nos. 2724 and 425 for 61 J. (TEIBESTY).

 

Whereas, there was a dispute before the Administrative Court on the ownership of a trademark, used for pizza restaurants known by the name of TEIBESTY and a case was filed against one of our clients, Mr. Said Abdel Hafiz, owner of TEIBESTY Restaurant, located at Lebanon Square, and  this case was made by an ex-partner in the company, which owned the said restaurant.

 

The Claimant, the ex-partner , claimed his right in registering the mark and canceling its registration in the name of Mr. Said Abdel Hafiz. The report of the State Council's Commissioner was issued in favour of the claimant on the ground that there was an article in the exit contract that grants an ex-partner to use the trademark of TEIBESTY on the condition of adding his name to it.

 

The court decided to retain the case for judgment in the session of 16.5.2009, which decided that the trademark is a name created by  the owner of the commercial establishment to distinguish it from other establishments.

 

As for the trade name it is that name derived from the civil name of the establishment's owner, therefore the personal name constitutes a basic element in the formation of the trade name. If the trade name is registered in the commercial register and published, no other merchant can use this name in the type of trade, practiced by its owner.

 

Whereas, the Claimant did not submit any documents to prove the existence of his company before the existence of our client' company (the fourth defendant) and that the basis of protecting a trademark is the priority of using the mark, which is available in the mark, subject matter of objection.

 

For these reasons the court decided to accept the three cases in form and reject them with respect to the subject matter on the ground that in spite of the existence of a partnership contract between the claimant and the fourth Respondent, who exited from the company, and which the Respondent continued and practiced the same activity. And in spite of the agreement in the exit contract on the right of each partner to use the trademark with the addition of the owner's name thereof, yet there are partners other than the Fourth Respondent. The court concluded that the Fourth Respondent, Mr. Said Abdel Hafiz, has the right to register and own the TEIBESTY mark on the services of the restaurants.