Similarity Of Marks
“MOBİL/MOBİL VİZYON, MOBİL FUTBOL” Trademarks
Exxonmobil Oil Corporation vs. Avea Iletisim Hizmetleri
Ankara Court on Intellectual and Industrial Rights,
Case No.2006/391, Decision No.2007/23(February 27, 2007)
Exxonmobil Oil Corporation instituted an action against Avea Iletisim Hizmetleri A.S. for the cancellation of the defendant’s trademark registrations for MOBIL FUTBOL1 and MOBIL VIZYON on ground of their similarity with the plaintiff’s trademark MOBIL , well-known in the sense of Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention and Article 7/1 (i) of the Decree Law no.556, on the protection of Trade/Service Marks even for differing goods/services claiming that said trademarks have been filed in bad-faith in order to take unfair advantage from the reputation of plaintiff’s trademark.
The defendant asserted that the denomination MOBIL refers to “mobility” in its semantic meaning, that MOBIL has become a generic name in the related business area and that the denominations “VIZYON” and “FUTBOL” constitute the distinctive part of the trademarks requesting thereby the rejection of the case.
Regarding the plaintiff’s trademark the Court considered that it consists of a single element, the word MOBIL, which is sufficiently distinctive in respect of the registered goods/service classes.
As for the defendant’s trademarks, considering that the nature, characteristic of the service was not disclosed in itself by the word MOBIL alone, but in conjunction with ancillary and descriptive elements, the Court held that the word MOBIL was an essential element of the defendant’s marks and in the sense of Article 8/1 (b) of the Decree Law no.556 it was in the nature of confusing the public as being another version of the plaintiff’s trademark.
The Court ruled for the cancellation of the defendant’s trademarks on grounds that the registration of a similar mark even in respect of differing goods/services class would damage the distinctive character of the plaintiff’s trademark .