On May 15, 2024, the Jerusalem District Court, Judge Avigdor Dorot, allowed an appeal by Kviskal Services Ltd. against a decision of the Israeli Registrar of Trademarks restricting registration of its Hebrew laundry mark to institutional-use products. The case, Administrative Appeal 24545-09-23, concerned the weight to be given to a coexistence agreement with the owner of an earlier similar registered trademark.
Subsequent history: The District Court ruling was reversed by the Supreme Court on April 10, 2025, in LCA 5743/24. The Registrar’s original restriction was restored. The District Court decision is therefore discussed here as a historical stage in the litigation, not as a statement of current binding law. For the controlling outcome see Kviskal: Israeli Supreme Court (2025).
The Hebrew Marks and Earlier Registration
Kviskal Services Ltd. had long supplied industrial laundry services and washing-machine rental, particularly to institutional customers. Its proposed trademark “כביסקל” resembled the already registered Hebrew mark “כביסכל” belonging to Perfume Clean Ltd., used for household cleaning and laundry products.
The companies negotiated a coexistence agreement and submitted it to the Trademark Department on July 2, 2023. Perfume Clean consented to Kviskal’s application, but the Registrar continued to consider the risk that members of the public would confuse the marks.
The Registrar’s Decision of August 15, 2023
In proceedings before Deputy Registrar Dr. Roya Israeli, Kviskal agreed to add the Hebrew patach vowel point under the letter kuf in the proposed mark. The Registrar allowed registration in Classes 35 and 37, but for Class 3, covering laundry and cleaning preparations, required both the vowel point and a limitation of the goods to institutional use.
Kviskal disputed the limitation of the goods specification. It argued that the trademark owners’ settlement was sufficient to manage coexistence and that restricting registration would weaken its ability to defend its established name against unrelated competitors.
The Court Accepted That the Signs Were Confusingly Similar
Kviskal argued that the shared Hebrew element relating to washing was descriptive and that differences in the final letters were sufficient to distinguish the names. The Registrar considered the overall visual and phonetic resemblance significant.
The District Court did not disturb the Registrar’s professional assessment that there was a likelihood of confusion. The appeal was decided on a separate legal question: the proper effect of the owners’ coexistence agreement despite that similarity.
The District Court’s Approach to Consent
Judge Dorot placed decisive weight on the agreement. In the District Court’s view, when the proprietor of an existing registered trademark agrees to use and registration of a similar mark, the consent should receive priority because the parties are familiar with the markets and can regulate their commercial relationship themselves.
The Court considered that limiting registration would not necessarily stop uses the owners had already agreed to allow, and that a narrower registration might create unnecessary disadvantages for the applicant in relation to third parties.
The Distinction Between Concurrent Applications and an Earlier Registered Mark
A principal aspect of the District Court’s reasoning was the distinction between two pending applications for similar marks and a new application facing an earlier registered mark whose proprietor had consented.
The Court viewed Section 29 proceedings concerning competing applications differently from circumstances where an existing registered owner agreed to coexistence. It referred to comparative English and American approaches and interpreted the Registrar’s discretion under Section 30 in a manner that gave strong priority to consent in the latter situation.
The Supreme Court subsequently rejected this distinction, holding that Section 30(a) leaves the Registrar with statutory discretion in both settings, including authority to impose restrictions intended to prevent consumer confusion.
Would Restricting Class 3 Weaken Protection Against Third Parties?
Kviskal argued that trademark registration is principally a right to prevent unauthorized use by others, rather than an affirmative licence to use the mark. It feared that an institutional-use limitation could impair protection against third parties marketing household laundry products under a confusing sign.
The District Court accepted the point as supporting the appeal. The Supreme Court later clarified that a restriction in the goods specification does not necessarily eliminate infringement protection in respect of goods of the same description. The two issues must be analyzed separately under the Israeli Trademarks Ordinance.
District Court Result and Subsequent Reversal
On May 15, 2024, the District Court ordered that the Kviskal mark could be registered without restricting Class 3 to institutional use and awarded a total of NIS 15,000 in costs and attorneys’ fees against the Registrar.
On April 10, 2025, the Supreme Court allowed the Registrar’s appeal, reversed that outcome, reinstated the Registrar’s original conditions and set aside the costs order. A letter of consent is consequently important but does not prevent the Registrar from examining risks to consumers and imposing suitable registration conditions.
Significance for Trademark Coexistence Agreements in Israel
This litigation illustrates why a private settlement should not be presented as eliminating an otherwise apparent likelihood of confusion. Applicants need to consider the precise signs, goods specifications, customer groups and actual safeguards. The operative Supreme Court position gives meaningful weight to coexistence agreements while preserving an independent regulatory assessment of confusion.
For a related historical example of an unsuccessful territorial coexistence arrangement, see Concurrent Trademark Registration with Geographic Restrictions. For identical marks used for different banking products, see OMNI Trademark Registration and Goods Specifications.
