We want to show you clearly the importance of your brand surveillance and why our specific plan is necessary. Situations such as the example shown below are common and your brand is not exempt from being able to face circumstances such as those imagined here
An example of the Specific Plan for the Surveillance of Trademarks © may be the following:
Mark to watch
Patisseries Dulciclair, Limited applied for the registration of PATISSERIE DULCICLAIR as a service mark of a pastry shop (class 43) and of chocolate and cake products (class 30) in addition to franchise services in class 35. By not opposing its registration, no earlier trademark was granted. With the application, it acquired a right of priority, namely that any subsequent identical or similar mark that would lead to confusion in the market would be refused if provided that Patisseries Dulciclair, Limited objected. But for Patisseries Dulciclair, Limited to oppose it must ensure that no one intends to register a trademark that is confusing with its DULCICLAIR trademark.
The monitoring plans.
In the surveillance plan of this brand should be discarded as generic the name PATISSERIE, since any pastry chef has the right to use this name.
Therefore, the distinctive sign to be monitored would be DULCICLAIR.
Accordingly, consideration should be given to their comparison with the following:
Consonant phonetic similarities:
Comment: The monitoring of consonant phonetic similarities can be programmed conventionally, although there are some that are considered vacuous such as TULTICLAIR or DULTICLAIR can be discarded by hand at the time of drawing up the specific comparative list, not being possible for the computer program to do so because it does not find references on which to rely.
Vowel phonetic similarities to compare:
Comment: The monitoring of vowel phonetic similarities can be programmed conventionally, although there are some that are considered vacuous such as DOLCICLAIR could be discarded manually at the time of drawing up the specific list of analogies to be compared, which the computer program cannot do because it does not find references to rely on.
Comment: It is not possible to separate these denominations of a creative nature by any program because there is no support, since they are conjunctions of words created advertising and not approved in dictionaries.
Not being able to be separated computerized can give the paradox that two denominations of identical pronunciation, DULCICLAIR and DULCI CLAIR are not programmatically detected. Hence the need to manually draw up the list of similarities by separation to be compared.
Synonyms in Spanish to be included in the comparative list:
Comment: The monitoring of synonymic similarities in Spanish are often impossible to program conventionally due to their creative nature and if achieved there are always synonyms that, because they are comparatively vacuous such as GOLOSINCLAIR, could be discarded manually, which a computer program cannot do either.
Synonyms in English and French:
Comment: The monitoring of synonymic similarities in other languages commonly used in trademarks such as English or French, are often impossible to program conventionally, due to their creative nature and if achieved there are always synonyms that, because they are comparatively vacuous such as BONBONCLAIR, could be discarded manually, which the computer program cannot do.
Of all these comparative options, some can be confirmed because they are considered suitable and others dismissed as comparatively harmless. They can be sorted randomly, but there should be no repeats, because that would distort the comparative program.
Here is an example of a comparative list that has been prepared specifically for the chosen brand. This is how you must do for each brand according to the Heda Watch Plan. You, together with Heda’s advisor, can discard from the list those comparative options that you consider innocuous or add or modify those that you consider suitable.
This list is unfailingly compared by computer crossing with all trademark applications published in the national, Europe union and international daily bulletins and if any coincidence is found, the owner of the monitored mark is notified by e-mail to decide whether or not to file an opposition.