The case of Pemex brand in the United States to a year in the news
The brief account of the facts.
The newspaper El Universal published on its front page the news, after confirming with our office that Pemex brand was registered in the U.S. and the owner of that record is not owned by Petroleos Mexicanos, but a company incorporated in Cayman Islands Intermix name, to which followed other publications from which the reporter noted the Jesusa Cervantes Proceso magazine.
The media reaction to the directors of Mexico’s most important business was swift and published his position: “there was no interest to apply for trademark registration in the United States was not interested because the company sell its products in that country ” nevertheless sought a trademark registration in 2004 and not specifically to the record in the United States Patent and Trademark Office proved otherwise and consequently the headlines went to work to the Legal Department of Petróleos Mexicanos to retrieve the brand in the United States , it is clear and there is no doubt that the sale of oil from Mexico to the United States for three quarters of a century is a trademark use sufficient to have standing to register today is not so simple will have to resolve the TTAB the legal dispute and give the record to prove who the better right.
The lawsuit filed in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).
On February 4, 2010 Petroleos Mexicanos (PM) filed a lawsuit requesting the cancellation of the mark Pemex priority requested by Intermix, the lawyer in charge is Raymond A. Kurz, the records requested are invalid class 4 (Crude oil and refined petroleum products, namely gasoline and industrial oils, grease and lubricants), Class 35 (Advertising, business relationship management and business-related services Industry crude oil and oil products) and Class 40 (Petroleum Refining).
The application and answer: The rhetoric battle.
First coup by PM: “The brand Pemex Intermix holding confuses the consumer public, believing that comes from the manufacture of Petroleos Mexicanos, therefore it is presumed that Intermix attracts consumers to the Mexican firm’s reputation.”
Intermix: “The lawyer did not demonstrate the use of the mark in the U.S., so the consumer can not be confused when purchasing a product that does not know.”
The case of Pemex gas station in Philadelphia (pirated of course) in fact shows that consumers recognize the logo of an eagle in Memphis, TN. here the video: Pemex in the United States if they do not ask immigrants.
Intermix: “There are two different interpretations of the Lanham Act: The Circuit Court assumed to be valid for a foreign company need not prove the rights deriving from trademark registration but only his fame, however, the TTAB’s approach is the opposite, which is the instance in which it carries out the resolution of the dispute. ”
PM: “The similarity in degree of confusion between two marks, they are identical.”
Intermix: “There can be confusion as no shows have used the brand in America.”
PM: “Fraud has falsely used to distinguish products and services for which it was registered.
Intermix Response: This is unfounded since they are statements without evidence. ”
Intermix: “The Mexican company was founded in 1938 and 72 years is enough time to apply for registration of the mark in America.”
Intermix: “The Mexican company abandoned the requested record in 2004 for lack of interest.”
In summary of the process called Intermix that demand was rejected, a request that was denied by the TTAB to find logical reasons to accept the case. The schedule of activities mark until 2012, surely we have the first sentence of the TTAB, meanwhile wait until June 2011 to see the allegations.
Processing your request, Please wait....
