Table of Contents
In the competitive world of business, trademarks are not just symbols; they are the identity of your business, representing your reputation, quality, and trustworthiness. At Kurdi & Co., a leading law firm in Palestine, we specialize in intellectual property litigation, providing robust legal representation to safeguard our clients’ rights. We are proud to share two recent victories in high-stakes trademark disputes, which highlight our expertise in intellectual property law in Palestine.
Case 1: Opposition/Objection to Trademark Registration (No. 35323, Class 29)
Our client, Hammoudeh Food Industries Co. Ltd., a well-established entity in the food sector, has been the rightful owner of the “Hammoudeh” trademark since its registration in 2003 under Class 29, which covers dairy products, milk, and related goods. The trademark has gained significant recognition across the Middle East, including Jordan, Iraq, Bahrain, and Palestine, solidifying its reputation in the market.
In 2019, a competing entity filed to register a trademark under the name “Hamoda” within the same class. Recognizing the potential for consumer confusion and the infringement of our client’s established rights, we filed a formal opposition to the registration of this trademark. Our legal team, comprising some of the best intellectual property attorneys in Palestine, meticulously prepared the case, leveraging our deep understanding of IP legal services in Palestine to protect our client’s interests.
The Legal Challenge: Proving Infringement and Preventing Consumer Confusion
The case presented a complex legal challenge, requiring a thorough analysis of trademark law and its application. Central to our argument was the assertion that the registration of “Hamoda” constituted an infringement of our client’s prior rights under the Trademarks Law No. 33 of 1952. We demonstrated that the mark “Hamoda” was deceptively similar to “Hammoudeh” in terms of phonetics, visual representation, and the goods it purported to cover. This similarity, we argued, was likely to cause confusion among consumers, thereby violating the principles of trademark law designed to prevent such outcomes.
We further emphasized that the registration of “Hamoda” would amount to an act of unfair competition, as it sought to capitalize on the established reputation and goodwill associated with the “Hammoudeh” trademark. This argument was grounded in Article 8 (6) of the Trademarks Law, which prohibits the registration of marks that deceive the public or promote unfair competition. Additionally, we invoked Article 7 (1), which mandates that trademarks must possess a distinctive character to avoid confusion with existing marks.
The Court’s Ruling: A Resounding Victory for Trademark Protection
The Supreme Court of Palestine, in its capacity as the highest judicial authority, rendered a decisive ruling in favor of our client. The court held that the registration of “Hamoda” would indeed create a likelihood of confusion among consumers, given the striking similarity between the two marks in terms of pronunciation, appearance, and the goods they represented. The court further affirmed that such confusion would unfairly benefit the applicant at the expense of our client’s established market presence.
In its judgment, the court underscored the importance of protecting prior trademark rights and preventing the dilution of distinctive marks. The ruling reinforced the principles enshrined in Articles 7 (1), 8 (6), and 8 (10) of the Trademarks Law, which collectively safeguard against the registration of marks that infringe upon existing rights, deceive the public, or promote unfair competition. The court’s decision to reject the registration of “Hamoda” not only protected our client’s intellectual property but also set a precedent for the enforcement of trademark rights in Palestine.
Case 2: Opposition/Objection to Trademark Registration (No. 35326, Class 32)
In a parallel case, our client faced another challenge when Al-Hamouda Food Products Co. attempted to register the trademark “Hamoda” under Class 32, which includes non-alcoholic beverages, fruit juices, and other related products. Despite the difference in class, the similarity between the marks “Hamoda” and “Hammoudeh” posed a significant risk of consumer confusion.
Our legal team argued that the registration of “Hamoda” in Class 32 would still infringe on our client’s prior rights, as the marks were nearly identical in pronunciation, appearance, and the goods they represented. We emphasized that the difference in class did not justify the registration, as the potential for consumer confusion remained high.
The Court’s Ruling: Another Victory for Trademark Protection
The Supreme Court of Palestine once again ruled in favor of our client, rejecting the registration of “Hamoda” in Class 32. The court found that the similarity between the marks was sufficient to cause confusion among consumers, regardless of the difference in class. This ruling further reinforced the importance of protecting prior trademark rights and preventing unfair competition.
Legal Implications: Strengthening Trademark Protection in Palestine
These cases serve as pivotal examples of the legal mechanisms available to trademark owners in combating infringement and protecting their intellectual property. They highlight several key principles of trademark law:
First, the cases reaffirm the doctrine of prior rights, which grants precedence to the first user or registrant of a trademark. By demonstrating our client’s prior ownership and extensive use of the “Hammoudeh” mark, we successfully established its superior claim to the trademark.
Second, the rulings underscore the importance of consumer confusion as a central consideration in trademark disputes. Courts will closely examine whether a contested mark is likely to mislead consumers, even if the differences between the marks appear minor. This principle is critical in preventing the erosion of brand identity and consumer trust.
Third, the cases illustrate the legal recourse available against unfair competition, particularly in cases where a party seeks to exploit the reputation of an established mark. By invoking Article 8(6) of the Trademarks Law, we demonstrated that the registration of “Hamoda” would constitute an act of unfair competition, thereby warranting its rejection.
Why Choose Kurdi & Co. for Intellectual Property and Trademark Matters?
At Kurdi & Co., we pride ourselves on our ability to navigate the complexities of intellectual property law, delivering tailored solutions to protect our clients’ rights. These cases exemplify our commitment to upholding the principles of trademark law and ensuring that our clients’ brands remain secure from infringement and unfair practices. Whether you are seeking to register a new trademark, enforce your existing rights, or defend against infringement claims, our team of experienced attorneys is equipped to provide the strategic guidance and representation you need.
Safeguard Your Intellectual Property Today
In an increasingly competitive marketplace, protecting your intellectual property is essential to maintaining your brand’s integrity and market position. If you are facing a trademark dispute or require assistance with intellectual property matters, contact Kurdi & Co. today. Our dedicated team is here to help you navigate the legal landscape and secure the protection your brand deserves.
This Article was researched and written on Mar 11th, 2025 by Amer Kurdi.
