File an opposition against a trademark
Our specialized trademark attorneys will advise you and file trademark oppositions.
- Experienced trademark attorneys with more than 20 years work experience especially with international trademark
- Transparent fees
- Friendly advice via phone and email
Please select a country for trademark registration
What is an opposition against a trademark and how does it work?
An opposition against a trademark is a legal procedure that allows a party to object to the registration of a trademark by another party. In this article, we will discuss what an opposition is, why it may be necessary, and how the process works.
A trademark is a symbol, word, or phrase that is used to distinguish the goods or services of one company from those of another. In order to obtain legal protection for a trademark, it must be registered with the appropriate governmental agency. This process typically involves filing an application with the agency and providing information about the mark, the goods or services it will be used to identify, and the applicant's legal ownership of the mark.
Once the trademark application has been filed, it is published for a period of time to allow other parties to review the application and raise objections to the registration of the mark. If an objection is raised, the opposition procedure begins.
The opposition procedure typically starts with the filing of a formal notice of opposition by the party objecting to the registration of the mark. The notice of opposition must be filed with the same governmental agency that handles trademark registration, and must be accompanied by a fee.
The notice of opposition typically sets out the grounds for opposition, which may include arguments that the mark is too similar to an existing trademark, that it is descriptive or generic, or that the applicant lacks the legal right to register the mark.
After the notice of opposition is filed, the party seeking to register the mark has an opportunity to respond. This response is typically called an answer, and must be filed within a specified period of time. The answer may set out reasons why the opposition is unfounded, or may include amendments to the mark or the application to address the concerns raised in the opposition.
Once the answer is filed, the opposition procedure moves forward to a discovery period, in which the parties exchange information and documents relevant to the opposition. This may include depositions, written interrogatories, and requests for production of documents.
After the discovery period has ended, the opposition will typically proceed to a hearing. The hearing may take place before an administrative panel or an administrative law judge, depending on the jurisdiction. At the hearing, the parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments in support of their positions. The decision in the case will be made based on the evidence and arguments presented, as well as the applicable law.
If the opposition is successful, the trademark application will be refused, and the mark will not be registered. If the opposition is unsuccessful, the trademark will be registered, and the applicant will have legal protection for the mark.
In summary, an opposition against a trademark is a legal procedure that allows parties to object to the registration of a mark that they believe infringes on their rights. The process can be complex and may involve a significant amount of legal and administrative work, but it is an important tool for protecting trademarks and ensuring that the marketplace remains fair and competitive.
When is an opposition against a trademark successful?
An opposition against a trademark can be successful if the opposing party can prove that the trademark in question conflicts with their prior rights, and that the registration of the trademark would cause confusion among consumers.
The success of an opposition depends on several factors, including the strength of the opposing party's prior rights, the similarity between the marks, the similarity of the goods or services, and the likelihood of confusion in the minds of consumers.
To succeed in an opposition, the opposing party must provide evidence that their prior rights are stronger than the rights of the applicant. This evidence can include prior use of a similar or identical mark in connection with similar or related goods or services, or registration of a similar or identical mark for similar or related goods or services.
The similarity between the marks is also an important factor. The more similar the marks are, the greater the likelihood of confusion among consumers. This includes similarities in the visual appearance, phonetic sound, and overall impression of the marks.
The similarity of the goods or services is also important. If the goods or services are similar or related, consumers are more likely to believe that the marks are associated with the same source. If the goods or services are not similar, the likelihood of confusion is reduced.
Finally, the likelihood of confusion is assessed from the perspective of the average consumer. The assessment is based on the level of attention of the relevant public, the similarity between the marks, and the similarity of the goods or services. If the likelihood of confusion is high, the opposition is more likely to succeed.
In summary, an opposition against a trademark can be successful if the opposing party can prove that the trademark in question conflicts with their prior rights, and that the registration of the trademark would cause confusion among consumers. The strength of the prior rights, the similarity between the marks, the similarity of the goods or services, and the likelihood of confusion are all factors that are considered in determining the outcome of an opposition.
When is there a likelihood of confudion between trademarks?
There is a likelihood of confusion between trademarks when an average consumer would be likely to mistake one trademark for another or believe that the trademarks are associated with the same source. This can occur when two trademarks are similar in appearance, sound, or meaning, and are used in connection with similar or related goods or services.
The likelihood of confusion is determined by considering a number of factors, which may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the specific circumstances of the case. However, some of the key factors that are typically considered include:
- Similarity of the marks: If the marks are visually, phonetically, or conceptually similar, there is a higher likelihood of confusion. For example, the use of the same or similar word or design elements in the marks can create confusion.
- Similarity of the goods or services: If the goods or services associated with the marks are similar or related, consumers are more likely to believe that the marks are associated with the same source. For example, the use of similar marks for clothing and fashion accessories could create confusion among consumers.
- Strength of the marks: If one of the marks has a well-established reputation and is widely recognized by consumers, the likelihood of confusion is greater. This is because consumers are more likely to associate the similar mark with the well-known mark.
- Channels of trade: If the goods or services associated with the marks are sold in the same or similar channels of trade, there is a higher likelihood of confusion. For example, if both marks are used in online marketplaces or department stores, consumers may be more likely to believe that the goods or services come from the same source.
- Actual confusion: Evidence of actual confusion among consumers is often considered strong evidence that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks.
It is important to note that the likelihood of confusion is determined on a case-by-case basis, and the factors considered may vary depending on the specific circumstances of the case. Ultimately, the determination of whether there is a likelihood of confusion between trademarks depends on the perspective of the average consumer. If an average consumer is likely to be confused between two trademarks, then there is a likelihood of confusion.