{"id":955,"date":"2017-08-04T18:41:59","date_gmt":"2017-08-04T18:41:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=955"},"modified":"2024-04-23T03:46:28","modified_gmt":"2024-04-23T03:46:28","slug":"the-battle-of-the-f-marks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/?p=955","title":{"rendered":"THE BATTLE OF THE \u201cF\u201d MARKS"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t<div data-elementor-type=\"wp-post\" data-elementor-id=\"955\" class=\"elementor elementor-955\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-top-section elementor-element elementor-element-9582bd5 elementor-section-boxed elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default\" data-id=\"9582bd5\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-top-column elementor-element elementor-element-fc9db44\" data-id=\"fc9db44\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-92cb99b elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"92cb99b\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<p>Question: Will adding another letter to an existing trademark make a difference? NO, said the IPO Bureau of Legal Affairs.<\/p><p>In its Decision No. 2017-299 dated 13 July 2017, the IPO Bureau of Legal Affairs denied the registration of the trademark \u201cF F AND F\u201d for being confusingly similar with \u201cF &amp; F\u201d.<\/p><p>The case started when Hans Tan (\u201crespondent-applicant\u201d) sought to register the mark \u201cF F AND F\u201d under Classes 25 and 35, respectively for \u201cclothing, footwear, headgear\u201d and \u201cadvertising, business management, business administration, office functions\u201d.<\/p><p>Tesco Stores Limited (\u201cOpposer\u201d) filed an opposition case against Respondent-applicant\u2019s \u201cF F AND F\u201d trademark claiming that it is confusingly similar with its in-house clothing brand \u201cF&amp;F\u201d, which was originally called \u201cFlorence and France\u201d.<\/p><p>The IPO Bureau of Legal Affairs observed that the prevalent feature of the Opposer\u2019s mark is \u201cF&amp;F\u201d. Also, looking at the Respondent-Applicant\u2019s mark, the IPO Bureau of Legal Affairs observed that similar elements are incorporated therein. Firstly, the symbol \u201c&amp;\u201d is merely a shortened version of the word \u201cand\u201d. Secondly, it appears that the Respondent-Applicant merely added another letter \u201cF\u201d at the beginning in coming up with the applied mark. Thirdly and most noteworthy, the position of the additional letter \u201cF\u201d in the Respondent-Applicant\u2019s mark is on top of \u201cF AND F\u201d. As a result, \u201cF AND F\u201d is even more emphasized because the said phrase is separately placed from the beginning letter \u201cF\u201d.<\/p><p>As repeatedly emphasized by the IPO Bureau of Legal Affairs, \u201cconfusion cannot be avoided by merely adding, removing or changing some letters of a registered mark. Confusing similarity exists when there is such a close or ingenious imitation as to be calculated to deceive ordinary persons, or such resemblance to the original as to deceive ordinary purchaser as to cause him to purchase the one supposing it to be the other\u201d.The Honorable Bureau further stated that this is most especially true in this case where the contending marks similarly cover goods\/or services under Classes 25 and 35.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<!-- AddThis Advanced Settings generic via filter on the_content --><!-- AddThis Share Buttons generic via filter on the_content -->","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Question: Will adding another letter to an existing trademark make a difference? NO, said the IPO Bureau of Legal Affairs. In its Decision No. 2017-299 dated 13 July 2017, the IPO Bureau of Legal Affairs denied the registration of the trademark \u201cF&#8230;<!-- AddThis Advanced Settings generic via filter on get_the_excerpt --><!-- AddThis Share Buttons generic via filter on get_the_excerpt --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[31],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-955","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ip"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/955","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=955"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/955\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3901,"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/955\/revisions\/3901"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=955"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=955"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.veralaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=955"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}