Legal News
Orange vs Orangeworks – Judgement received

This article was first published in Your Business Magazine April/May 2011 issue
Author: Emmie de Kock - 13 September 2010

De Kock Attorneys recently represented Account Works Software (Pty) Limited t/a ORANGEWORKS, a young South African company selling accounting software, in a “David and Goliath” battle against Orange Personal Communication Services Limited. The latter is a multinational telecommunications company based in the United Kingdom, and proprietor of various ORANGE trade mark registrations. This company was represented by Adams & Adams Attorneys.

We filed two trade mark applications on behalf of Account Works Software on 17 March 2006, namely:

(a) trade mark application no: 2006/05687 ORANGEWORKS in class 9 which covers “computer software and software programmes relating to accounting” ; and

(b) trade mark application no: 2006/05688 ORANGEWORKS Logo in class 9 which covers “computer software and software programmes relating to accounting”.

The dispute started in February 2007 when Orange Personal Communication Services sent a letter addressed to ORANGEWORKS demanding that it ceased using the ORANGE element in its business name, as it conflicted with its trade mark entries for various ORANGE marks on the Trade Marks Register in inter alia classes 9 and 38.

As the conflict could not be resolved through correspondence, Orange Personal Communication Services first proceeded to lodge a formal objection against Account Works Software. This was then recorded and incorporated in 2006, as Orangeworks Software, on the Companies Register. Account Works Software defended the matter and a full answer was lodged in reply to the objection. The Registrar of Companies ruled on 18 October 2007 that the Orangeworks Software company name was undesirable in terms of Section 45(2) of the Companies Act 61 of 1973. Its name was changed to Account Works Software on the Companies Register. Account Works Software proceeded to trade under its ORANGEWORKS trade mark.

The ORANGEWORKS trade marks were examined by the Registrar of Trade Marks in May 2007 and the Registrar requested that the applications be endorsed with disclaimers for the ORANGE element. The ORANGEWORKS trade marks then proceeded to advertisement in the Patent Journal for opposition purposes on 28 May 2008 and 28 October 2009.

Orange Personal Communication Services requested extensions of the opposition terms and proceeded to launch formal trade mark opposition proceedings against the ORANGEWORKS trade marks on 26 November 2008. This was done on the basis that the proposed registration of the ORANGEWORKS marks would offend against Section 10(15) of the Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993. In principle, Section 10(15) bars the registration of a trade mark which so nearly resembles another mark that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion when used in a normal and fair manner in respect of the relevant goods the respective trade mark applications cover. Despite the fact that Orange Personal Communication Services is the proprietor of a substantial trade mark portfolio including various registered entries for its ORANGE mark in relevant classes, it based its opposition only on trade mark application no: 2005/16116 ORANGE in class 9 which inter alia covers “…computer programs, computer software..”.

Regarding the comparison of the marks, ORANGEWORKS vs. ORANGE, it was argued by Orange Personal Communication Services that the trade marks are confusingly similar as ORANGE is wholly incorporated in ORANGEWORKS and that ORANGE is the first, dominant and most memorable feature of the ORANGEWORKS mark.

Account Works Software argued that the inclusion of one mark in another mark does not per se or automatically lead to confusion, as marks must be considered as wholes. A lot of trade evidence was represented on examples of other businesses in the information technology sector using or registering the element “ORANGE” in their domain names, company or close corporation names or trading styles. This evidence supported the argument that members of the public is not likely to be confused by ORANGEWORKS, as they are likely to be aware of other “ORANGE” businesses in the same sector.

However, it appears that it was the test applied for the comparison of the respective goods covered by the respective marks which made the Registrar rule in favour of Account Works Software. In this regard, evidence presented by Account Works Software inter alia proved that the specific sector of the public who is likely to encounter the ORANGEWORKS trade mark, related mostly to business owners or managers and accountants who generally conduct proper research before purchasing the type of goods covered by the ORANGEWORKS trade marks, namely accounting software.

The Registrar further disagreed with the argument that since both specifications refer to “computer software” that the goods are accordingly identical. No evidence was presented to show that use of the ORANGE trade mark in relation to “computer software” and “computer programs” encompasses use in relation to “software relating to accounting”. According to the Registrar, Orange Personal Communication Services succeeded to prove use of its ORANGE trade mark in relation to telecommunication goods, and not in relation to accounting software. Evidence submitted revealed that around 88.6 million customers are using ORANGE telecommunication goods and services in 23 countries around the world.

The Registrar therefore concluded that the ORANGE and ORANGEWORKS trade marks may co-exist on the Trade Marks Register in class 9, as, in view of the different goods covered, confusion or deception is not likely to occur. Even side by side use of the respective marks in the normal and fair manner in the ordinary course of business in relation to accounting software on the one hand, and telecommunication goods and services on the other hand, is unlikely to create a reasonable likelihood of deception or confusion in trade.

The ORANGEWORKS trade mark applications are therefore proceeding to registration.

 

 

Business Attorneys
Trademark Attorneys
Copyright Attorneys
Patent Attorneys
Intellectual Property Attorneys
Commercial Attorneys
 
           
Home
About Us
Careers
Contact Us
Entrepreneurs
Start-up Package
Starting a Business
Protecting New Ideas
Trademarks
Classification
Litigation
Audits
Copyright
Publishing
Music Industry
Film Registration
Patents
PCT Applications
Design Classification
Design Introduction
Commercial
Franchising
Companies
Consumer Protection
           
   
Home
About Us
Careers
Contact Us
Entrepreneurs
Trademarks
Copyright
Patents
   
The previous generation Rolex Submariner still used aluminum bezel inserts, and rolex replica in comparison to the more modern ceramic ones, they are almost barbaric. Flat and easy to rolex replica sale scratch aluminum bezel inserts should not be found in anything but inexpensive watches these days. Some people, of course, omega replica sale have a fondness for the older aluminum-style bezel (or even some of the plastic ones, from a really long time ago). Those people are clearly rolex replica sale turning a blind eye to the impressive design, precision cut markers, and scratch resistance properties of a ceramic bezel. Also, sorry folks, in 30 years the Cerachrom bezel isn't going to "patina." It will stay the same glossy rolex replica uk black color it is when you buy it. Inside the Rolex Submariner 114060 is the totally in-house made caliber 3130 hublot replica uk automatic. It is an utterly well-made, no nonsense workhorse of the highest caliber (no pun rolex replica sale intended) that just tells the time.
Copyright © De Kock Attorneys Professional Web Design - ITSys Developments