An Israeli medical device company filed a trademark application for “esaylabour” and was rejected for being descriptive.
The applicant argued in vein that that labour generally means work and that the mark is distinct since they could not find any “esaylabour” in the US and EU and that they branded and advertised the mark.
The applicant hence appealed to the commissioner and argued that similar marks were allowed before by the Israeli Patent Authority, the applicant also argued that the product(s) are used also for general pain relief.
The commissioner dismissed those arguments showing the differences between the applicant’s trademark and the applicant’s examples of previously allowed trademarks and by stating that the applicant had estopelled himself during the prosecution.
The applicant was not represented during the prosecution and appeal.