The importance of logos in fashion - FAKE DUCK vs SAFE THE DUCK

Logos are very important in fashion. Consumers usually have the first glance at clothing hanging or lying in the store shelves and they recognize the brand immediately by the neck logo. So the question is how important that logo is when determining whether a brand is similar?

When FAKE DUCK applies for trademark protection for its logo for clothing and bags, Save The Duck opposes this application based on its older logo, which was registered for identical products. Fake Duck initially loses, but it doesn't leave it at that. Ultimately, the case reaches the ECJ (European Court of Justice).

This court first checks whether the trademarks are similar. Both signs consist of a black silhouette of a duck and contain the word DUCK. The signs are visually and conceptually similar. The auditory similarity even more so, as FAKE and SAVE sound quite alike. The average consumer knows the difference between FAKE and SAVE. But is this enough?

No. SAVE THE DUCK is a well-known trademark in Italy however. As a result of its intense use it has a highly distinctive character and the products are identical. Conclusion: there is a risk of confusion. The FAKE DUCK trademark is refused despite the different words.

trademark-registration



Latest news
Milka misses the mark Ritter Sport chocolate bars valid shapemark
Update on Brexit - Part 4
Hema crocodile infringes on Lacoste after all
Production in China and brand protection, HONDA vs HONDAkit
CrossFit vs CrossBox
claimant
defendant
claimant
defendant

PURE - MENTOS

MENTOS has been selling chewing gum under the name MENTOS PURE FRESH for several years. In order to protect her rights MENTOS has registered the following trademarks: the logo MENTOS PURE FRESH, the logo MENTOS PURE FRESH 3 and a figurative depiction of the word PURE. Defendant sells chewing gum under the trademark DENTYNE PURE and has registered its logo as a trademark. Infringement or not?
Follow Abcor