\n
Expertise, reports of patent attorneys and otherspecialists in trademark cases<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Kateryna Sopova<\/strong>
Ukraine<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Abstract
<\/strong>The article analyses the expertise as a means of provingintrademarkcases, and other documents (reports of the patent attorney, reports of sociological surveys, reviews of expertise, etc.), which submit the parties in support of their claims and objections and to clarify circumstances relevant to the case. Also, cases were considered when courts came to the place of average consumers and independently established the fact of similarity of signs in such a way that they could be confused. In trademark rights cases, there is a need for research based on the use of specialist knowledge and involvement as one of the means of proving the expertise. The features of trademark expertise are defined, which consists in the fact that trademarks are being researched in a complex of comparison of their characteristics, close connection with the goods and services for which they are registered, and from the position of their perception by the average consumer. It was suggested that reviews of expertise, provided outside the procedure for reviewing the expertise\u2019s of court experts and expert studies, approved by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, should be assessed by the court as inadmissible evidence. When establishing the similarity of signs by a court, it is necessary to justify this similarity in the decision with the reflection of all factors that can be relevant for establishing such a circumstance.<\/p>\n\n\n\nKeywords: <\/strong>court expertise, report of the patent attorney, review of expertise, report of sociological surveys, sign for goods and services, trademark<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Theory and practice of intellectual property\u2116 6 \/ 2018 ISSN (Print) 2308-0361ISSN (Online) 2519-2744 DOI: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.33731\/62018.162527 Published \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a02018-12-26 Expertise, reports of patent attorneys and otherspecialists in trademark cases Kateryna SopovaUkraine AbstractThe article analyses the expertise as a means of provingintrademarkcases, and other documents (reports of the patent attorney, reports of sociological surveys, reviews of expertise, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-10834","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10834","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10834"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10834\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10836,"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10834\/revisions\/10836"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10834"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/018-cover-734x1024.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/test.inprojournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/free-icon-pdf-201153.png\"){kind=icon}
PDF (Ukrainian)<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/inprojournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/CC-2.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n