Subject: RE: VENEZUELA - Trademark published for opposition purposes - ADALYA v ADALYA - Deadline: 11/21/2025
From: Ruben Calderon <[email-masked]>
To: ▷ Paul Mertes | Rechtsanwalt (SFS)<[email-masked]>, Trademarks Bolet & Terrero <[email-masked]>
Cc: Guillermo Lopez <[email-masked]>, Paula Alfaro <[email-masked]>, Annette Angulo <[email-masked]>, Hillmer Vallenilla <[email-masked]>, Luis Henriquez <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2026 14:21:27 +0000

Dear Paul,

We hope you are doing well.

We confirm the brief was duly filed on May 15th. Attached you will find a copy for your records.

Best regards,

De: ▷ Paul Mertes | Rechtsanwalt (SFS) <[email-masked]>
Enviado el: lunes, 25 de mayo de 2026 9:09 a. m.
Para: Ruben Calderon <[email-masked]>; Trademarks Bolet & Terrero <[email-masked]>
CC: Guillermo Lopez <[email-masked]>; Paula Alfaro <[email-masked]>; Annette Angulo <[email-masked]>; Hillmer Vallenilla <[email-masked]>; Luis Henriquez <[email-masked]>
Asunto: AW: VENEZUELA - Trademark published for opposition purposes - ADALYA v ADALYA - Deadline: 11/21/2025

Dear Rubén,

I hope you are doing fine.

Are there any updates in this matter (i.e., filing a brief requesting prosecution, stating that the conflicting application is lapsed and ADALYA’s application shall proceed to registration)?

Best,
Paul

Von: ▷ Paul Mertes | Rechtsanwalt (SFS) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. April 2026 15:27
An: 'Ruben Calderon' <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; 'Trademarks Bolet & Terrero' <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: 'Guillermo Lopez' <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; 'Paula Alfaro' <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; 'Annette Angulo' <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; 'Hillmer Vallenilla' <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; 'Luis Henriquez' <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Betreff: AW: VENEZUELA - Trademark published for opposition purposes - ADALYA v ADALYA - Deadline: 11/21/2025

Dear Rubén,

Thank you for your email and the good news.

Honestly: It's crazy that, after all his efforts, the opponent is now simply failing to make this payment. However, luckily for us.

Please proceed with filing a brief requesting prosecution, stating that the conflicting application is lapsed and ADALYA’s application shall proceed to registration. Costs are approved.

Best,
Paul

Von: Ruben Calderon <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Gesendet: Montag, 27. April 2026 15:59
An: ▷ Paul Mertes | Rechtsanwalt (SFS) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Trademarks Bolet & Terrero <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: Guillermo Lopez <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Paula Alfaro <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Annette Angulo <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Hillmer Vallenilla <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Luis Henriquez <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Betreff: RE: VENEZUELA - Trademark published for opposition purposes - ADALYA v ADALYA - Deadline: 11/21/2025

Dear Paul,

We hope you are doing well. Please be informed that WALID MOUNF SHAMD did not pay the registration fees in due time.

Consequently, ADALYA’s application No. 2022-002270 in class 34 should move forward. At this stage, we suggest filing a brief requesting prosecution, stating that the conflicting application is lapsed and ADALYA’s application shall proceed to registration. The costs involved in filing the brief are as follows: Professional Fees US 100 + VAT 16% + Fees and Expenses US 45.

Best regards,

De: ▷ Paul Mertes | Rechtsanwalt (SFS) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Enviado el: lunes, 27 de abril de 2026 9:37 a. m.
Para: Ruben Calderon <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Trademarks Bolet & Terrero <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
CC: Guillermo Lopez <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Paula Alfaro <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Annette Angulo <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Hillmer Vallenilla <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Luis Henriquez <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Asunto: AW: VENEZUELA - Trademark published for opposition purposes - ADALYA v ADALYA - Deadline: 11/21/2025

Dear Rubén,

Did WALID MOUNIF SHAMS pay of the registration fees in time?

Best,
Paul

Von: Ruben Calderon <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Gesendet: Montag, 16. März 2026 17:12
An: ▷ Paul Mertes | Rechtsanwalt (SFS) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Trademarks Bolet & Terrero <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: Guillermo Lopez <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Paula Alfaro <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Annette Angulo <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Hillmer Vallenilla <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Luis Henriquez <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Betreff: RE: VENEZUELA - Trademark published for opposition purposes - ADALYA v ADALYA - Deadline: 11/21/2025

Dear Paul,

Hope you are doing well.

Please note that is not the case. Both the VPTO, the Ministry and the Courts have recognized that Article 33.12 of the Industrial Property Law is the legal basis to challenge bad faith applications that replicate well-known marks. Therefore, on principle, the Ministry should have reviewed the arguments and evidence. This lack of exhaustiveness is the main argument against the legality of the resolution.

On the other hand, another factor to consider is whether WALID MOUNIF SHAMS performs the payment of the registration fees. Currently, he has until March 24, 2026 to do so. In the event he does not pay the fees, his application will lapse and the client’s ADALYA application may move forward. This would be the best-case scenario. We suggest monitoring the payment of the registration before taking further action.

Best regards,

De: ▷ Paul Mertes | Rechtsanwalt (SFS) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Enviado el: viernes, 13 de marzo de 2026 4:55 a. m.
Para: Ruben Calderon <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Trademarks Bolet & Terrero <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
CC: Guillermo Lopez <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Paula Alfaro <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Annette Angulo <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Hillmer Vallenilla <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Luis Henriquez <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Asunto: AW: VENEZUELA - Trademark published for opposition purposes - ADALYA v ADALYA - Deadline: 11/21/2025

Dear Rubén,

Thank you for your email and your explanations.

I assume that it is always the case that “The Ministry did not evaluate arguments based on the well-known status” and, thus, no bad faith registration can be challenged in Venezuela without an own prior registration (which would then no longer be a bad faith registration but simply a conflicting application). This means that a case can never be won up to this Ministry instance and this instance is at most a necessary intermediate step on the way to a nullity action before the Venezuelan Supreme Court, if (!) the Supreme Court takes Adalya's well-known status into account. If the Supreme Court also does not do so on principle, then it makes no sense to examining the detailed prospects of success because then there is no such success possible and then a nullity action is worthless.

Am I right?

Best,
Paul

Von: Ruben Calderon <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. März 2026 23:19
An: ▷ Paul Mertes | Rechtsanwalt (SFS) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Trademarks Bolet & Terrero <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: Guillermo Lopez <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Paula Alfaro <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Annette Angulo <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Hillmer Vallenilla <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Luis Henriquez <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Betreff: RE: VENEZUELA - Trademark published for opposition purposes - ADALYA v ADALYA - Deadline: 11/21/2025

Dear Paul,

Please find bellow our responses to your inquiries.

  1.  Since the trademark was also registered in Nice Class 34, but the ministry claims that “the products differ from each other,” what goods did the opponent register in Class 34?
I assumed that the goods were identical. Please note that the Ministry is extremely formalistic in its analysis of the case. Consequently, since our Industrial Property Law bases the grounds for rejecting an application exclusively on existing registrations, the Ministry compared the goods using only the client’s registration in Class 4. The Ministry did not evaluate arguments based on the well-known status of Adalya.
  2.  Was the Ministry aware of our successful opposition proceedings against the ADALYA application by “SMOKE IT LECHERIA, C.A.”? No. Please note that this prior case was not used as an argument before the Ministry because in that case, SMOKE IT LECHERIA’s application was lapsed automatically due to the applicant not replying to the opposition. Therefore, the VPTO did not analyze the merits of the prior opposition.
  3.  If the Ministry's argument is that the trademarks do not conflict with each other, then our application 2022-002270, which was only blocked because of the trademark of WALID MOUNIF SHAMS, Appl. No. 2021-006426, should now be approved on the basis of the same argument. In principle, it should immediately be approved, as there are only two options left: either we appeal and win, in which case the trademark of WALID MOUNIF SHAMS, Appl. No. 2021-006426, will be gone, or we lose the appeal, but then with the statement that the trademarks do not conflict with each other. What is your opinion? As previously mentioned, the reasoning of the Ministry was based exclusively on comparing the goods from the existing registration in class 4 with the application in class 34. Therefore, should WALID MOUNIF SHAMS’ application mature into a registration, it would still block the client’s 2022-002270 application.
  4.  What are the costs involved in examining the disastrous decision so closely that you can assess the chances of success of an appeal? We estimate dedicating around 3-4 hours in providing a detailed analysis of the resolution (US 600-800), which would be deduced from the US 15.000 budget for the lawsuit.
We hope this clarifies your inquiries and look forward to receiving your comments.
Best regards,

De: ▷ Paul Mertes | Rechtsanwalt (SFS) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Enviado el: miércoles, 11 de marzo de 2026 10:32 a. m.
Para: Ruben Calderon <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Trademarks Bolet & Terrero <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
CC: Guillermo Lopez <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Paula Alfaro <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Annette Angulo <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Hillmer Vallenilla <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Luis Henriquez <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Asunto: AW: VENEZUELA - Trademark published for opposition purposes - ADALYA v ADALYA - Deadline: 11/21/2025

Hi Rubén,

Thank you for your email.

Given that the report relates to the procedure against WALID MOUNIF SHAMS, Appl. No. 2021-006426, I have the following questions:

  1.  Since the trademark was also registered in Nice Class 34, but the ministry claims that “the products differ from each other,” what goods did the opponent register in Class 34?
I assumed that the goods were identical.
  2.  Was the Ministry aware of our successful opposition proceedings against the ADALYA application by “SMOKE IT LECHERIA, C.A.”?
  3.  If the Ministry's argument is that the trademarks do not conflict with each other, then our application 2022-002270, which was only blocked because of the trademark of WALID MOUNIF SHAMS, Appl. No. 2021-006426, should now be approved on the basis of the same argument. In principle, it should immediately be approved, as there are only two options left: either we appeal and win, in which case the trademark of WALID MOUNIF SHAMS, Appl. No. 2021-006426, will be gone, or we lose the appeal, but then with the statement that the trademarks do not conflict with each other. What is your opinion?
  4.  What are the costs involved in examining the disastrous decision so closely that you can assess the chances of success of an appeal?

Best,
Paul

Von: Ruben Calderon <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Gesendet: Montag, 9. März 2026 14:45
An: ▷ Paul Mertes | Rechtsanwalt (SFS) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Trademarks Bolet & Terrero <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: Guillermo Lopez <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Paula Alfaro <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Annette Angulo <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Hillmer Vallenilla <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Luis Henriquez <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Betreff: RE: VENEZUELA - Trademark published for opposition purposes - ADALYA v ADALYA - Deadline: 11/21/2025

Dear Paul,

We hope you are doing well.

In response to your question, please note that due to a clerical mistake this report was included in the thread relating to the opposition file regarding application No. 2025-010054. This report indeed relates to the procedure against WALID MOUNIF SHAMS, Appl. No. 2021-006426.

We look forward to receiving your comments.

Best regards,

De: ▷ Paul Mertes | Rechtsanwalt (SFS) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Enviado el: lunes, 9 de marzo de 2026 6:23 a. m.
Para: Ruben Calderon <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Trademarks Bolet & Terrero <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
CC: Guillermo Lopez <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Paula Alfaro <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Annette Angulo <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Hillmer Vallenilla <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Luis Henriquez <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Asunto: AW: VENEZUELA - Trademark published for opposition purposes - ADALYA v ADALYA - Deadline: 11/21/2025

Dear Rubén,

Thank you for your email.

This is disastrous news!

I have five questions before I inform the client and ask him for a statement.

  1.  Your response was sent as a response regarding “Appl. No. 2025-010054” with the opponent “SEYEDHOOMAN ASHRAFTALESH.” However, in the text of your email you are referring to the Appl. No. 2021-006426 which belongs to the opponent “WALID MOUNIF SHAMS”. Is this a mistake? If yes, then pleas ignore the following questions.
  2.  Until now, I have assumed that this was an appeal procedure. When you write, “the VPTO's decision was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed,” do you mean that the trademark office's registration of the trademark was the “VPTO's decision,” or have I missed a step in the procedure?

By the way: How is it possible that we have gone from opposition to a ministerial decision within a few months, while we have been waiting for years for such a decision in the case against “WALID MOUNIF SHAMS” which you do not expect until 2028?
  3.  Since the trademark was also registered in Nice Class 34, but the ministry claims that “the products differ from each other,” what goods did the opponent register in Class 34? I assumed that the goods were identical.
  4.  Was the Ministry aware of our successful opposition proceedings against the ADALYA application by “SMOKE IT LECHERIA, C.A.”?
  5.  Was the Ministry aware of the detailed information about ADALYA's reputation and successful cases against infringers worldwide that we presented in the “WALID MOUNIF SHAMS” case?

Best,
Paul

Von: Ruben Calderon <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Gesendet: Freitag, 6. März 2026 20:43
An: ▷ Paul Mertes | Rechtsanwalt (SFS) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Trademarks Bolet & Terrero <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: Guillermo Lopez <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Paula Alfaro <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Annette Angulo <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Hillmer Vallenilla <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Luis Henriquez <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Betreff: RE: VENEZUELA - Trademark published for opposition purposes - ADALYA v ADALYA - Deadline: 11/21/2025

Dear Paul,

Further to our bellow email, we regret to inform you that the Ministry of Commerce has issued an unfavorable decision on the appeal filed against the grant of the ADALYA application No. 2021-006426.

Content of the decision:

  1.  The Ministry of commerce decided the appeal filed by EGE EFE YATIRIM TICARET ANONIM SIKRETI against the dismissal of its opposition and the granting of the ADALYA (design) application No. 2021-006426.
  2.  The appeal was based on the ADALYA's well-known brands worldwide legally recognized on the Paris Convention and the TRIPS, as well the Venezuelan trademarks ADALYA (design) in classes 4 and 43 international.
  3.  The Ministry stated that, although the marks are graphically and phonetically identical, the products differ from each other, making the risk of confusion less plausible as the products are not aimed at the same public.
  4.  Upon the Ministry’s thesis, both marks may coexist without causing confusion amongst consumers. Therefore, the VPTO’s decision was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed.

Our comments:

  1.  The Ministry’s decision may be appealed through a Nullity Action before the Venezuelan Supreme Court. Nullity actions are a specific procedure that requires demonstrating the Ministry’s decision is void on the basis of erroneous application of law, false application of law or facts, illegality or unconstitutionality.
  2.  The deadline to file the Nullity Action is July 29, 2026.
  3.  The Nullity procedure comprises the filing of a Nullity Brief, the celebration of a trial hearing, the filing of evidence, and the filing of a conclusory brief.
  4.  An approximate budget for this type of procedure is around 15.000 USD, considering professional fees and expenses.
  5.  Regarding the merits of a possible Nullity action, from a preliminary review of the Ministry’s decision, we identified the following arguments:

  1.  Although the well-known status of ADALYA was argued and listed among the arguments of the Appeal, the Ministry did not accept nor reject the arguments, thus incurring in the vice of lack of exhaustiveness.
  2.  The Ministry considered that the protected goods and services between both identical marks are different from each other, but they did not consider the notoriety arguments and proofs we submitted for ADALYA, which demonstrates its well‑known character and consequently prevents the opposing mark from being registered.

  1.  Nevertheless, please take into consideration that this is a preliminary review; additional detailed comments may entail reviews of case law and doctrine.

We shall remain attentive to your comments and questions.

Best regards,

De: ▷ Paul Mertes | Rechtsanwalt (SFS) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Enviado el: jueves, 13 de noviembre de 2025 9:47 a. m.
Para: Trademarks Bolet & Terrero <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
CC: Guillermo Lopez <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Paula Alfaro <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Ruben Calderon <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Annette Angulo <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Hillmer Vallenilla <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Luis Henriquez <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Asunto: AW: VENEZUELA - Trademark published for opposition purposes - ADALYA v ADALYA - Deadline: 11/21/2025

Received, with thanks.

Best,
Paul

Von: Trademarks Bolet & Terrero <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. November 2025 20:46
An: ▷ Paul Mertes | Rechtsanwalt (SFS) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: Guillermo Lopez <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Paula Alfaro <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Ruben Calderon <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Annette Angulo <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Hillmer Vallenilla <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Luis Henriquez <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Trademarks Bolet & Terrero <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Betreff: RE: VENEZUELA - Trademark published for opposition purposes - ADALYA v ADALYA - Deadline: 11/21/2025

Dear Paul,

Further to our email below, we confirm that, pursuant to your instructions, we have proceeded to file within the legal term, and on behalf of EGE EFE YATIRIM TICARET ANONIM SIRKETI, an opposition against the trademark application identified below:

Y. Ref
O. Ref
Trademark
Class
Appln. No.
In the name of
N/A
AT004645
34
2025-010054
SEYEDHOOMAN ASHRAFTALESH

Enclosed herewith you will find the official filing receipt and a digital copy of the mentioned opposition brief for your files.

Our invoice for this service will follow within the next days.

Please be informed that, upon publication of the opposition in the Official Gazette, the applicant will a have a thirty-day term to file a reply thereto. If no reply is filed, the application will be deemed as finally lapsed by the Venezuelan Patent and Trademark Office (VPTO). On the other hand, if a reply is filed, the opposition will be decided within the next 2 to 3 years, due to the delays the VPTO is currently experiencing.

We shall be keeping you posted of further developments with regard to this case, as soon as they occur.

Best regards,

De: Trademarks Bolet & Terrero <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Enviado el: lunes, 20 de octubre de 2025 10:16 a. m.
Para: ▷ Paul Mertes | Rechtsanwalt (SFS) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Trademarks Bolet & Terrero <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
CC: Guillermo Lopez <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Paula Alfaro <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Ruben Calderon <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Annette Angulo <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Asunto: RE: VENEZUELA - Trademark published for opposition purposes - ADALYA v ADALYA - Deadline: 11/21/2025

Dear Paul,

We confirm receipt of your instructions and will proceed accordingly.

best regards,

________________________________
De: ▷ Paul Mertes | Rechtsanwalt (SFS) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Enviado: lunes, 20 de octubre de 2025 09:37
Para: Hillmer Vallenilla <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Trademarks Bolet & Terrero <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: Guillermo Lopez <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Paula Alfaro <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Ruben Calderon <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Annette Angulo <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Asunto: AW: VENEZUELA - Trademark published for opposition purposes - ADALYA v ADALYA - Deadline: 11/21/2025

Dear Hillmer,

Thank you for your email.

The client accepts the costs and wants to oppose the trademark.

So please proceed with filing the opposition.

Best,

Paul

Von: Hillmer Vallenilla <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. Oktober 2025 18:37
An: ▷ Paul Mertes | Rechtsanwalt (SFS) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Trademarks Bolet & Terrero <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: Guillermo Lopez <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Paula Alfaro <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Ruben Calderon <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Annette Angulo <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Betreff: RE: VENEZUELA - Trademark published for opposition purposes - ADALYA v ADALYA - Deadline: 11/21/2025

Dear Paul,

Thank you for your email.

The costs for filing the opposition are as follows:

  *   Professional fees: US$ 700 + 16% VAT
  *   Expenses and Official fees: US$ 60

Regarding the chances of success, the difference between this case (SEYEDHOOMAN ASHRAFTALESH / Appl. No. 2025-010054) and the previous one (WALID MOUNIF SHAMS / Application No. 2021-006426) is that in this instance, we do have a prior application to the recently published trademark. Specifically, Application No. 2022-002270 in Class 34 filed by EGE EFE YATIRIM TICARET ANONIM SIRKETI.

This prior application gives us precedence to obtain registration over the application (SEYEDHOOMAN ASHRAFTALESH / Appl. No. 2025-010054), which is identical from a graphic, phonetic, and product identification standpoint. Under this scenario, the chances of success for the opposition would be high—above 80%—as long as we maintain the prior application 2022-002270 and it proceeds to registration.

However, it is important to note that Application 2022-002270 by EGE EFE YATIRIM TICARET ANONIM SIRKETI is currently on hold due to the case involving the trademark (WALID MOUNIF SHAMS / Application No. 2021-006426). Until that case is definitively resolved, Application 2022-002270 will not receive a final decision.

If your client decides to oppose the trademark mentioned in the previous email, this case would also be placed on hold pending the outcome of the earlier cases.

We remain at your disposal for any comments or instructions.

Best regards,

________________________________

De: ▷ Paul Mertes | Rechtsanwalt (SFS) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Enviado: Miércoles, 15 de Octubre de 2025 04:52
Para: Trademarks Bolet & Terrero <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
CC: Guillermo Lopez <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Paula Alfaro <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Hillmer Vallenilla <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Ruben Calderon <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Asunto: AW: VENEZUELA - Trademark published for opposition purposes - ADALYA v ADALYA - Deadline: 11/21/2025

Dear Paula,

Thank you for your email.

Based on your knowledge of current and previous cases we have had/are having in Venezuela in connection with the infringement of ADALYA trademarks, in particular the dismissed case "WALID MOUNIF SHAMS / Application No. 2021-006426):

  1.  How do you assess the chances of success of opposition proceedings in this case?
  2.  What would the current costs be?

Please inform me in advance if considering this email will create any costs.

Best,

Paul

Von: Trademarks Bolet & Terrero <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Gesendet: Dienstag, 14. Oktober 2025 16:06
An: ▷ Paul Mertes | Rechtsanwalt (SFS) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: Guillermo Lopez <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Paula Alfaro <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Hillmer Vallenilla <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; Ruben Calderon <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Betreff: VENEZUELA - Trademark published for opposition purposes - ADALYA v ADALYA - Deadline: 11/21/2025

Dear Paul,

We hope this email finds you well. Please be informed that the below listed trademark application was published for opposition purposes in the Official Gazette No. 646, currently in force:

Mark

Class

App. No.

Applicant

34 intl.

2025-010054

SEYEDHOOMAN ASHRAFTALESH

The deadline to file oppositions against this application will expire next November 21st, 2025.

Please let us know if you require further information. We remain attentive to your comments.

Best regards,