Интересно дело приключи наскоро в Швейцария. То касае спор между производителят на часовници SWATCH и белгийската компания TKS.
Двете компании подписват споразумение според което SWATCH се съгласяват с регистрацията на марка ICE - WATCH заявена от TKS, както и да не подават, при определени условия, бъдещи опозиции срещу тази марка.
След време отношенията между двете компании се влошават и SWATCH подават опозиции срещу няколко марки Ice-Watch на TKS. Според SWATCH причината е в нарушаване на клаузите на споразумението от страна на белгийската компания.
Съдът отхвърля опозициите на SWATCH. Те обжалват с довода, че подобни ангажименти за неподаване на опозиция са в разрез със законодателството касаещо търговските марки.
Върховният съд на Швейцария излезе с решение по спора с което отхвърля жалбата на SWATCH като неоснователна. Поетите ангажименти от SWATCH били договорни и не били в разрез със законодателството в Швейцария.
English version
An interesting law case has been completed recently in Switzerland. It was concerned a dispute between the manufacturer of watches SWATCH and Belgian company TKS.
The two companies signed an agreement whereby SWATCH agree to the registration of a mark ICE - WATCH owned by TKS, and agreed, under certain conditions, not to oppose against this trademark in the future.
Over time relations between the two companies deteriorated and SWATCH filed oppositions against several trademarks of Ice-Watch owned by TKS. According SWATCH the reason for that was a valuation of the terms of the coexisting agreement by the Belgian company.
The Court rejected the opposition of SWATCH. They appealed, arguing that such commitments for restraining from opposition were at variance with the laws concerning trademarks.
The two companies signed an agreement whereby SWATCH agree to the registration of a mark ICE - WATCH owned by TKS, and agreed, under certain conditions, not to oppose against this trademark in the future.
Over time relations between the two companies deteriorated and SWATCH filed oppositions against several trademarks of Ice-Watch owned by TKS. According SWATCH the reason for that was a valuation of the terms of the coexisting agreement by the Belgian company.
The Court rejected the opposition of SWATCH. They appealed, arguing that such commitments for restraining from opposition were at variance with the laws concerning trademarks.
The Supreme Court of Switzerland ruled in the dispute and dismissed the SWATCH arguments as unfounded. The commitments in the coexisting agreement made by SWATCH were contractual and were not in conflict with the law in Switzerland.
information Marques Class 46.
information Marques Class 46.
