The battle between oil operator employers’ associations intensifies. The Commercial Court number six of Madrid will be in charge of settling the lawsuit for national trademark infringement filed by the Spanish Association of Petroleum Products Operators (AOP) against the Association of Spanish Oil Operators and Distributors (AOPYDE).
According to the text of the lawsuit, to which elEconomista.es had access from judicial sources, the traditional AOP, which since 1993 has integrated the main companies dedicated to refining and distribution in Spain (BP, Cepsa, Galp, Gunvor, Repsol and Saras ) has asked the court to force Aopyde, which includes some independent companies such as Biomar, Biovigo Energy, Virosque or MarTankship – some of them disqualified for this activity – to modify the name of your association, eliminating the acronym Aopyde, and replacing it with another name that does not form the AOP sequence.
The oil majors also demand the removal of any support where the Aopyde signs appear, the effective cancellation of the aopyde.com domain and the marketing of their lobbying services activity with said brand.
As AOP indicated to this newspaper, “it does not oppose or question the constitution of any type of association, since it recognizes and respects the right of any group to organize and establish an association within the framework of the law.” However, they clarify that for months, they have tried to find solutions between the parties, with the sending of a burofax to AOPYDE in which they requested the desistence of the use of the brand upon understanding that the similarity between the name, the graphic image and the scope of action could be detrimental to both parties. However, they did not receive a response from AOPYDE.
From here, following the ordinary channels established by the Trademark Law and once they were aware of the beginning of the registration process for the AOPYDE trademark at the Spanish Patent and Trademark Agency and the subsequent opening of the period for filing oppositions, AOP’s legal team exercised its right to oppose the registration of AOPYDE.
This is a standard legal procedure that allows registered trademark owners or any person entitled to use a trademark to oppose the registration of a new trademark that is considered similar or identical to theirs and gives rise to a likelihood of confusion between both. A procedure that does not prevent any associative initiative, but rather guarantees compliance with shared identity standards.
Additionally, and on the recommendation of AOP’s legal team, and in view of the lack of response from AOPYDE, this judicial procedure was initiated against AOPYDE.
According to the text of the lawsuit, the AOP employer considers that the infringement of trademark rights occurs after a comparison of signs, the comparison of services offered and the risk of confusion.
Regarding the comparison of signs, both have a circular symbol in their logo and there are enormous coincidences in their phonetics.
AOP also presents jurisprudence from the Court of Justice of the EU indicating that similarity of signs occurs (Fon and Neofon case) when the earlier national mark is reproduced in its entirety in the trademark applied for, thus creating a visual and phonetic similarity between the signs in conflict. as is the case of AOP and AOPYDE.
#AOPs #oil #majors #AOPYDE #court #copying #brand
