מארכיון בית המשפטערעור אזרחי

August Stork KG נ' אלפא אינטואיט מוצרי מזון בע"מ

פסק הדין בע"א 11487/03 ניתן ביום 23 במרץ 2008.

ההכרעה, במילותיו של בית המשפט.

[41] S. Asschenfeldt, 'Protection of Shapes as Trademarks', IIP Bulletin 2003(found in the internet site of Institute of Intellectual Property (IIP):

פסק הדין ניתן ביום 23 במרץ 2008.

בית המשפט: בית המשפט העליון
מקרה: ע"א 11487/03
נפתח: 2003
ניתן: 23 במרץ 2008
משך: 34 עמודים

כך מצטטים את פסק הדין.

ע"א 11487/03 August Stork KG נ' אלפא אינטואיט מוצרי מזון בע"מ (23.3.2008)

הנוסח המלא של פסק הדין.

פסק-דין

CA 11487/03

1.August Storck KG

2.Storck Service GmbH

1.Alpha Intuit Food Products Ltd.

2.Hagit Musaif

The Supreme Court sitting as the Court of Civil Appeal

[23 March 2008]

Before Vice-President E. Rivlin, Justices A. Grunis, E. Rubinstein

Appeal on the judgment of the Tel-Aviv-Jaffa District Court in CC 2191/03 from 19 November 2003 handed down by the Hon. Justice Y. Zeft

Facts: The appellants filed suit against the respondents for violation of a registered trademark and unjust enrichment. The appellants argued that the marketing by the respondents of a candy with a similar shape to the Tofifee candy that the appellants manufacture and market constitutes a violation of the appellants' trademark. The District Court dismissed the appellants' claim that their commercial trademark is a three-dimensional mark comprised of the shape of the Tofifee candy and determined instead that the appellants' mark is a two-dimensional mark that does not protect the shape of the Tofifee candy, but rather only the graphic shape as presented in the Trademark Registry's abstract. It was further held that even if the Trademark Ordinance [New Version] 5732-1972 enables the registration of three-dimensional trademarks, the shape of the product itself cannot be registered as a trademark. The District Court held that the marketing of a candy similar in shape to the shape of the candy that appears under the appellants' trademark does not constitute a violation of the trademark. The District Court also compared the packaging of the respondents' and appellants' candy and concluded that the packaging of the respondents' candy does not create a risk of misrepresentation and does not violate the appellants' mark. The appellants appealed the District Court's decision.

Held: The Court held that the three-dimensional shape of a product is not eligible for registration based on its possession of an inherently distinctive character. However, it is eligible for registration on the basis of its possession of an acquired distinctive character. The Court further held that to the extent that the shape of the product fulfills a functional or aesthetic role (beyond a negligible role), the trademark will not be eligible for registration even if it acquired a distinctive character in fact. The judgment of the District Court was overturned, such that the proceeding was remanded to the lower Court for determination of the validity of the appellants' mark according to the rules set out in the judgment. As to attorneys' fees for the appeal, it was held that they be ordered based on the outcome in the District Court.

Basic Laws cited:

Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, ss. 3, 8, 10.

Legislation cited:

Trademark Ordinance [New Version] 5732-1972 (hereinafter:'the Ordinance')

Patents Law 5727-1967

Regulations cited:

Trademark Regulations, 1940.

Israeli Supreme Court cases cited:

[1] CA 3559/02 Toto Zahav Members' Club v. Council for Regulation of Gambling in Sports, IsrSC 59(1) 873 (2004).

[2] HCJ 296/85 Sia Siak How (Anthony) v. Patent, Pattern, and Trademark Registrar, IsrSC 40(4)

770.[3] CA 5972/99 Tikshoret v'Chinuch Dati-Yehudi Mishpacha (1997) Ltd -Mishpacha Newspaper v. S.B.C. Advertising, Marketing, and Sales Ltd. -Mishapach Tova Newspaper, IsrSC 55(3) 933 (2001).

[4] LCA 371/89 Leibovitz v. A. And Y. Eliyahu Ltd., IsrSC 44(2) 309 (1990).

[5] FHCA 4465/98 Tivol (1993) Ltd v. Chef Ha'Yam (1994) Ltd., IsrSC 56(1) 56 (1994).

[6] CA 513/89 Interlego A/S v. Exin-Lines S.A., IsrSC 48(4) 133 (1994).

[7] CA 7125/98 Mifromal Jerusalem Industries v. Kalil Industries Ltd., IsrSC 57(3) 702 (2003).

[8] CA 3406/96 Sela Cement Products Ltd. v. Akerstein Industries Ltd., (unreported, 1 March 1999).

[9] CA 3776/06.

[10] HCJ 144/85 Kalil, Non-Iron Metal Industries Ltd. v. Patent, Design and Trademark Registrar, IsrSC 42(1) 309 (1988).

[11] CA 4675/97 Rehov v. State of Israel, IsrSC 53(4) 337.

[12] CA 941/05 Vinegrowers of Rishon L'Zion and Zichron Ya'acov Cooperative Society v. Kerem Company Ltd. (not yet reported, 17 October 2006).

[13] CA 4030/02 Amichai Trade Ltd. v. Shoris Erkot Navadim Ltd., IsrSC 58(5) 632

[14] CA 2673/04 Coffee to Go Marketing (1997) Ltd. v. Shaked, (not yet reported, 15 April 2007).

[15] CA 18/86 Israeli Glass Factories Fenecia Ltd v. Les Verreies De Saint Gobain, IsrSC 45(3) 224.

[16] CA 5454/02 Ta'am Hateva (1988) Tivoli Ltd. v. Ambrosia Superav Ltd., IsrSC 57(2) 438.

Israeli Magistrate Court cases cited:

[17] Ein Gedi Cosmetics Ltd. (unreported).

American cases cited:

[18] Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 [1992].

[19] Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U.S. 205 [2000].

[20] Traffix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 [2001].

[21] Qualitex Company v. Jacobson Products Company, Inc. 514 U.S. 159 [1995].

[22] Valu Engineering, Inc. v. Rexnord Corp., 278 F.3d 1268 [2002].

Canadian cases cited:

[23] Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc., 2005 SCC 65.

[24] Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc. [2003] F.C.J. No. 1112 (F.C.A.).

[25] Thomas & Betts, Ltd. v. Panduit Corp. [2000] F.C.J. No. 11 (F.C.A.).

[26] Remington Rand Corp. v. Philips Electronics N.V. [1995] F.C.J. No. 1660 (F.C.A.).

English cases cited:

[27] Coca-Cola Co., Re [1986] 2 All E.R. 274.

[28] Reckitt and Colman Products Ltd. v. Borden Inc. [1990] 1 All ER 873.

[29] Philips Electronics NV v. Remington Consumer Products Ltd. [1999] R.P.C. 809.

European Court of Justice cases cited:

[30] C-456/01, 457/01 Henkel KGaH v. OHIM (2004), sections 34-39 found on the internet site of the ECJ, http://curia.europa.eu/en/content/juris/index.htm

[31] C-25/05 August Storck KG v. OHIM, sections 25-29, also found on the internet site of the ECJ.

[32] Philips Electronics NV v. Remington Consumer Products Ltd. [2002] All ER (EC) 634.

Israeli books cited:

[33] A.H. Zeligson, Trademark Laws and Related Laws (1972).

[34] Amir Friedman, Trademarks - Law, Case Law, and Comparative Law (2nd edition, 2005).

[35] Uma Suthersanen, Design Law in Europe (2000).

[36] G. Ginat,'Passing Off' Tort Law -The Various Torts (G. Tadeschi, ed. 1982).

[37] M. Deutsch, Commercial Torts and Trade Secrets [2002].

Foreign books cited:

[38] A. Folliard-Monguiral & D. Rogers, The Protection of Shapes by the Community Trade Mark [2003] E.I.P.R. 169, 178-179.

[39] David Kitchen, David Llewelyn, James Mellor, Richard Meade, Thomas Moody-Stuart & David Keeling, Kerly's Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names (14th ed., 2005), Chapter 6.

[40] Christopher Wadlow, The Law of Passing-Off - Unfair Competition by Misrepresentation (3rd Ed., 2004) 663-693

Foreign articles cited:

[41] S. Asschenfeldt, 'Protection of Shapes as Trademarks', IIP Bulletin 2003(found in the internet site of Institute of Intellectual Property (IIP):

חיפוש התיק באתר בית המשפט העליון

בית המשפט נתן את פסקי הדין האלה בערך באותו זמן.

כל פסקי הדין של בית המשפט העליון →

ההכרעה, במילותיו של בית המשפט.

פסק הדין ניתן ביום 23 במרץ 2008.

כך מצטטים את פסק הדין.

הנוסח המלא של פסק הדין.

בית המשפט נתן את פסקי הדין האלה בערך באותו זמן.

עוד כלים