-
BMW Protects Its Distinctive Identity: ‘BMV’ Application Refused
On 19 May 2025, the EUIPO’s Fifth Board of Appeal confirmed the refusal of the trade mark application for ‘BMV’, filed by Victron Energy B.V. for battery monitors in Class 9. The Board upheld BMW’s opposition under Article 8(5) EUTMR. While the goods are not identical, the Board found that the similarity between the signs,…
-
Prada’s Opposition to ‘JIU JIU’ Fails: A Lesson in Local Trademark Protection
On 31 March 2025, the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) rendered a surprising decision by dismissing an opposition by Prada Group to the ‘JIU JIU’ trademark registration owned by Taiwanese company Dijia Co., Ltd. The trademark ‘JIU JIU’, designated for skincare and cosmetics products in Class 3 goods, was challenged by Merchant Pride Co., Ltd…
-
Pattern Trademarks in Fashion: Proving Distinctiveness Beyond Design
In fashion, a strong design is a valuable asset. But beyond aesthetics, the real test lies in whether that design can hold up in court. Pattern trademarks are intended to protect specific design configurations that help a brand stand out, but securing protection is often a complex and uncertain process. While Bottega Veneta succeeded in…
-
Patek Philippe Opposition Fails: EUIPO Finds No Likelihood of Confusion
On 11 April 2025, the EUIPO Opposition Division rejected an opposition brought by Patek Philippe against a figurative trade mark featuring two stylised letters ‘PP’. The Swiss luxury watchmaker alleged a likelihood of confusion with its own figurative ‘PP’ shield marks. However, the Office concluded that the visual differences between the signs were sufficient to…
-
Decanting the Details: Chianti Trademark Case
On April 16, 2025, a significant ruling was issued by the Second Board of Appeal, concerning a dispute between the Consorzio Vino Chianti and the Consorzio Vino Chianti Classico. This case is notable not only for its implications within the wine industry but also for the broader context of trademark law as it pertains to…
-
Dr. Martens v. Shein: Dr. Martens returns to court in a post-settlement trademark dispute
On 2 May 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order in Airwair International Ltd v. Zoetop Business Co. Ltd allowing key claims to proceed in a trademark dispute involving the Dr. Martens brand and Shein. The decision follows Airwair’s allegations that Zoetop, Shein’s parent company, breached a…
-
Louis Vuitton Secures Dismissal of Pocket Socks’ Claims in Trademark Dispute
On 29 April 2025, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted Louis Vuitton North America, Inc.’s motion to dismiss all claims brought by Pocket Socks, Inc. The court found that the complaint lacked sufficient factual detail to establish a realistic likelihood of consumer confusion and failed to define the claimed…
-
Scentologia vs. Scentology: UKIPO’s Analysis of Visual, Aural, and Conceptual Similarity
On 17 April 2025, the UK Intellectual Property Office issued its decision in the opposition proceedings brought by Inensa SA against GDS Prestige (FZC)’s application to register the mark Scentologia. The opposition was based on Section 5(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, relying on Inensa SA’s earlier registered mark Scentology. This article outlines the…
-
Levi Strauss v. Gear Up International: Use of Curved Line Device Would Take Unfair Advantage of Levi’s Mark
On 29 April 2025, the EUIPO issued its decision in Levi Strauss & Co v. Gear Up International Ltd, partially upholding Levi Strauss’s opposition to a figurative trade mark application filed by Gear Up. The contested sign, consisting of two curved lines converging at a pointed centre, was found to create a mental association with…