A recent trademark dispute has highlighted the complexities of branding in the fashion industry, focusing on the competition between two notable brands: Twinset S.p.A. and Christian Dior Couture. The case originated in April 2022 when Twinset sought to register a new figurative trademark covering a variety of products, in the European Union.

The Opposition

Shortly after Twinset’s application, Dior opposed it, citing concerns that Twinset’s trademark was too similar to their established trademarks, which had been registered in Europe and France since 2013 and 2014, respectively. Dior aimed to protect its brand identity, arguing that the two trademarks could easily confuse consumers and diminish their brand’s reputation.

During the proceedings, Dior put forth a significant amount of evidence to support their claims, including assertions regarding the reputation and distinctiveness of their earlier marks. However, Twinset did not respond to Dior’s opposition or the evidence provided, making the initial evaluation more straightforward.

In December 2023, the opposition division of the EUIPO reviewed the case and concluded that there were substantial differences between the two trademarks. They noted specific visual elements, such as shape, color, and design features, that distinguished Twinset’s logo from Dior’s existing marks. The Division determined that, despite some similarities, the overall impressions of the logos were distinct enough to prevent any potential confusion among consumers.

Analyzing Logo Similarities

This decision highlighted the importance of analyzing trademarks based on how they are perceived by the average consumer rather than on selective elements. Logos often have a strong visual impact, and the average consumer tends to perceive them at a glance, focusing on overall shape and color combinations rather than specific details.

Displeased with this ruling, Dior filed an appeal, arguing that the trademarks were indeed similar and that the decision did not fully consider the potential for confusion among consumers. They emphasized that both trademarks shared similar design elements, such as rounded shapes and stylized lettering, which could lead consumers to associate the two brands incorrectly.

Upon reviewing the appeal, the Board of Appeal found compelling arguments from Dior. They acknowledged that, while the initial ruling highlighted differences, there were indeed notable similarities in the logos, particularly in their overall design structure. Both brands featured ovals and stylized lettering, which could easily create an impression of similarity for consumers, especially when viewed in a retail context (see both trademarks side by side below).

As can be seen, the first comparison is using the original Dior trademark and the second comparison is using the remasterized Dior trademark. As can be noticed, the first has a much greater resemblance than the second; however, both are very similar.

The Board of Appeal’s Findings

The Board highlighted the key issue: the potential for consumer confusion. They recognized that consumers often do not engage in a meticulous analysis of trademarks but rather make quick decisions based on overall impressions. Given the high-profile nature of both brands, there was a significant risk that some consumers might mistakenly believe that Twinset’s products were associated with or endorsed by Dior.

As a result, the Board overturned the original decision and sent the case back for further examination. The Opposition Division was instructed to consider all evidence regarding the distinctiveness and genuine use of Dior’s trademarks, and how these factors could influence consumers’ perceptions. In a fair ruling regarding legal expenses, both Twinset S.p.A. and Christian Dior Couture were instructed to bear their own costs, reflecting the ongoing nature of the dispute without a clear winner at this stage.

Conclusion

This case is important for brands, particularly in the competitive fashion industry. It shows the necessity for brands to consider not just their own branding strategies but also the implications of similar trademarks that may evoke consumer confusion. As the case continues, both parties will need to substantiate their claims with compelling evidence, shaping the legal evaluation of trademark distinctiveness and consumer perception.

---

source: