O/274/21 892Kb

O/274/21

TRADE MARKS ACT 1994

IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION NO. UK00003406669 BY BERNARD MULHOLLAND LTD FOR THE FOLLOWING TRADE MARK:

IN CLASSES 18 AND 25

AND IN THE MATTER OF OPPOSITION THERETO UNDER NO. 417895 BY GUCCIO GUCCI S.P.A.

BACKGROUND AND PLEADINGS

1. On 13 June 2019, BERNARD MULHOLLAND LTD (“the applicant”) applied to register the trade mark shown on the cover page of this decision in the UK. The application was published for opposition purposes on 28 June 2019 and registration is sought for the goods set out in the Annex to this decision.

2. On 30 September 2019, Guccio Gucci S.p.A. (“the opponent”) opposed the application based upon sections 5(2)(b), 5(3), 5(4)(a) and 3(6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (“the Act”). Under sections 5(2)(b) and 5(3) of the Act, the opponent relies upon EUTM no. 121988 for the trade mark GUCCI.1 The opponent’s mark was filed on 1 April 1996 and was registered on 24 November 1998. For both sections, the opponent relies upon some of the goods for which the mark is registered, namely:

Class 18 Leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of these materials

and not included in other classes; handbags; purses; trunks and

travelling bags; backpacks; briefcases; card cases [notecases]; pocket

wallets; rucksacks; shopping bags.

Class 25 Clothing, footwear, headgear.

3. Under section 5(2)(b), the opponent claims that there is a likelihood of confusion because the parties’ respective trade marks are similar and the goods are identical or similar.

4. Under section 5(3), the opponent claims that use of the applicant’s mark would, without due cause, take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character and/or reputation of the earlier mark.

1 Although the UK has left the EU and the transition period has now expired, EUTMs, and International Marks which have designated the EU for protection, are still relevant in these proceedings given the impact of the transitional provisions of The Trade Marks (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 – please see Tribunal Practice Notice 2/2020 for further information.

5. Under section 5(4)(a), the opponent relies upon the sign GUCCI which it claims to have used throughout the UK since at least 1961 in relation to “various fashion goods, including goods and accessories made of leather and imitations of leather, bags, clothing, headwear and shoes”.

6. Under section 3(6), the opponent claims:

“The Applicant knew of the reputation and success of the Opponent’s business and prior marks and filed this Application with the intent to secure a monopoly by capitalising on and appropriating the goodwill and reputation in the Opponent’s business and prior marks without paying to the Opponent. The mark applied for is currently used by the Applicant as a domain name that redirects visitors to another website operated by the Applicant. The filing of this Application falls short of the standards of acceptable commercial behaviour observed by reasonable and experienced operators, and amounts to the Applicant having acted in bad faith at the time of filing the Application. Accordingly, the Application should be rejected in its entirety.”

7. The applicant filed a counterstatement denying the claims made.

8. Both parties filed evidence in chief. The opponent did not file evidence in reply. A hearing took place before me on 16 March 2021, by video conference. The opponent was represented by Charlotte Blythe of Counsel, instructed by Wiggin LLP. The applicant was self-represented, with its Director, Dr Bernard Mulholland giving submissions on its behalf.

EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS

The Opponent’s Evidence

9. The opponent filed evidence in the form of the witness statements of Vanni Volpi dated 25 August 2020 and Joanna Laura Gibbs dated 30 July 2020. Mr Volpi is the Intellectual Property Director of the opponent, a position he has held since 1 January 2017. He has worked in the opponent’s Intellectual Property Department since 2006.

Mr Volpi’s statement was accompanied by 16 exhibits. Ms Gibbs is the Solicitor acting on behalf of the opponent in these proceedings. Ms Gibbs’ statement was accompanied by 7 exhibits.

10. Mr Volpi explains that the opponent was founded in 1921, when the first store was opened in Florence, Italy. Initially, the opponent focused exclusively on leather goods but subsequently expanded into clothing, footwear and accessories. The opponent opened its first store in London in 1961 and in Paris in 1963. Mr Volpi has provided the following table for goods by the opponent:

11. With regard to market share, Mr Volpi has provided the following figures, which include the estimated size of the market for personal luxury goods:

12. Mr Volpi states that as of 31 December 2019, the opponent had 106 directly owned and operated stores in Western Europe. Mr Volpi states that all of these stores feature the earlier mark prominently. For example, the opponent has provided the following image of its concession in Harrods, London:2

And of its store in Rome:

2 Exhibit VV3

13. The opponent has 16 stores or concessions in the UK. These are located in Bicester, London, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Manchester. Opening dates are not provided for all of the stores, but of those that are provided they opened between February 2004 and September 2015. In Italy, the opponent has 32 standalone stores, franchise stores or concessions. These are located around the country including Capri, Florence, Milan, Naples, Bologna, Rome, Turin, Venice and Bari. Again, opening dates are not provided for all of these stores, but of those that are provided, they opened between July 2004 and June 2019.

14. The opponent’s mark also features in its e-commerce domain names e.g. gucci.com/uk/en_gb. Mr Volpi has provided the following visitor numbers for the opponent’s website:

15. Mr Volpi confirms that the opponent also sells its goods through third parties. For example, in the UK, this includes Flannels (a luxury fashion retailer within 27 stores in the UK), Net-A-Porter (an online only luxury fashion retailer), Childsplay Clothing (a children’s fashion retailer with one store in Ilford) and Pekino Childrenswear (a children’s fashion retailer with one store in Glasgow). In Italy, this includes Biffi Boutiques (a luxury fashion chain with 3 stores in Milan and one in Bergamo), G & B Negozi (a luxury fashion chain with stores in Flero, Ponte di Legno, Courmayeur and Aosta), Pure Sermoneta (a children’s clothing store in Rome) and Julian Fashion (a luxury fashion chain with stores in Milan, Lido degli Esensi and Rimini). The opponent has sold through all of the retailers named above for at least 5 years.

16. Mr Volpi explains that the opponent’s social media accounts have a significant number of worldwide followers. In this regard, Mr Volpi has provided the following figures:

17. Mr Volpi confirms that during the relevant period, the opponent spent tens of millions of Euros on marketing in the EU. This included between €1million and €10million in each of Italy and the UK.

18. The opponent has won a number of awards, including:3

a) In 2014, the opponent won best “International Luxury Brand” at the Walpole British Luxury Awards;

3 Exhibit VV5

b) In 2015 and 2016 respectively, “Alessandro Michelle for Gucci” won best “International Designer” and best “International Accessories Designer” respectively at The Fashion Awards;

c) In 2018, the opponent won “Brand of the Year” at The Fashion Awards;

d) In 2018, the opponent won “International Luxury Brand of the Year” at the Walpole British Luxury Awards.

19. Mr Volpi also confirms that:

a) “Between 2000 and 2014 (inclusive) and in 2016, Gucci was ranked as the number one Italian brand across all industries in Interbrand’s annual ranking of the ‘Top 100 Best Global Brands’”;

b) “In a 2017 report on ‘Fashion’s Hottest Brands’ prepared by Lyst and the Business of Fashion, Gucci was identified as the number one brand and labelled “the hottest fashion brand on the planet” with “four Gucci products in the 10 best-selling products globally”; and

c) “In 2018, Gucci was ranked as the number one Italian luxury brand by Brand Finance”.

20. Mr Volpi confirms that the opponent takes part in approximately 5 fashion shows each year. Mr Volpi confirms that between 23 June 2014 and 28 May 2019 the opponent took part in 20 fashion shows, 17 of which were in the UK or Italy. Photographs from the 2016 show in London include coats, handbags, belts, dresses, high-heeled shoes and hats.4 Examples from later shows display tops, ties, shirts and shorts. Mr Volpi confirms that a number of its fashion shows are streamed electronically and that it was ranked as number one in Vogue Runway’s “Top 10 Most Viewed 2017 Spring Collections”, “Top 10 Most Viewed 2017 Fall Collections” and “Top 10 Most Viewed Fall 2018 Collections”. Mr Volpi notes that the opponent

4 Exhibit VV6

collaborates with celebrities such as Sir Elton John (with whom he states the opponent has a long-standing relationship and whose image was used in the Spring/Summer 2018 collection) and Harry Styles (with whom they collaborated for the Fall/Winter 2018 collection).

21. Mr Volpi states that the earlier mark features on all of its products either by being stamped into the leather on goods such as wallets, belts or footwear or on labels in goods such as handbags, clothing and hats. Mr Volpi states that the mark also features on tags and product packaging.

22. Mr Volpi has provided images of products sold under the earlier mark in the EU (including the UK) during the relevant period.5 These are taken from ‘Look books’ and catalogues dated between 2014 and 2018. I note that these include examples of different handbags and backpacks, briefcases, luggage cases, small suitcases, jackets, tops, skirts, a range of different hats, ties, shirts, jeans, jumpers, blazers, dresses, shorts, belts, jewellery, suits, holdalls and coats, as well as different smart and casual shoes. I note that some examples display the earlier mark as registered or the following:

I also note that the examples provided include women’s wear, men’s wear and children’s wear.

23. Mr Volpi has also provided examples of products advertised through UK publications.6 I note the following:

a) An extract from Look dated 3 April 2017 displays a Gucci purse;

5 Exhibits VV8, VV13, VV14, VV15 and VV16 6 Exhibit VV9

b) An extract from Dazed dated 11 January 2019 displays a number of Gucci purses;

c) A print out from howtospendit.com dated October 2017 displays a Gucci wallet;

d) An extract from Urban Luxe dated 2015 displays a Gucci wallet which is described as being available for sale at Harrods;

e) An extract from Harper’s Bazaar dated November 2018 displays a Gucci wallet which it states is available for sale through Net-A-Porter.

24. Some examples of retail receipts to end users have also been provided.7 Those that are dated prior to the relevant date are dated between November 2014 and February 2019. These relate to sales made both online and in outlets across the UK including London, Birmingham and Bicester. Images of the corresponding products have been provided which include purses, handbags, backpacks, wallets, socks, women’s t-shirts, men’s trainers, men’s sandals, a baseball cap and a belt.

25. I note that the opponent’s mark has been advertised in UK publications including Harper’s Bazaar (September and December 2015), Grazia (February and November 2015), Elle (September 2016 and November 2017), The Guardian (March 2016), GQ Magazine (April 2016 and March 2019) and Tatler (March 2019).8

26. Mr Volpi has provided the following approximate total sales figures for goods sold under the earlier mark in the EU (excluding the UK) and the UK respectively during the relevant period:

Category EU (excluding UK) UK Handbags More than €1billion Several hundred million EUR

7 Exhibit VV12 8 Exhibit VV11

Luggage Several hundred million Several hundred million EUR EUR Women’s Small Leather Several hundred million Several tens of millions of goods9 EUR EUR Men’s Small Leather Several tens of millions of Tens of millions of EUR goods10 EUR Children’s Leather Several millions EUR Few million EUR goods11 Women’s Belts More than €100million Several tens of millions of EUR Men’s Belts More than €100million Several tens of millions of EUR Soft accessories12 Several tens of million More than €10million EUR Women’s ready to wear13 More than €200million Several tens of millions of EUR Men’s ready to wear14 More than €100million Several tens of millions of EUR Women’s silk More than €100million Tens of millions of EUR accessories15 Men’s silk accessories16 Several tens of million Several million EUR EUR

9 Including wallets, key cases, card cases, coin purses, cheque book covers, cosmetic cases, jewellery cases, train pass cases, document cases, organizers, mobile phone cases, wrist wallets, key chains, handbag charms, mobile phone straps. 10 Including wallets, key cases, card cases, coin purses, cheque book covers, train pass cases, document cases, money clips, key chains, handbag charms, mobile phone straps. 11 Including belts, handbags, luggage, shopping totes, photo albums, gift boxes. 12 Socks, tights, gloves, hats. 13 Suits, jackets, trousers, skirts, dresses, tops, knitwear, coats, outerwear, underwear, sports trousers, sports shirts, printed shirts, sweatshirts, denim tops, faux furs. 14 Suits, jackets, trousers, gilet, shirts, knitwear, coats, outerwear, swimwear, underwear, sports pants (trousers), sports shirts, printed shirts, sweatshirts, denim tops, faux furs. 15 Scarves, belts, hats, tights, ties. 16 Ties, bowties, cummerbund, hats, scarves, socks, boxer shorts.

Children’s ready to wear17 Several tens of million Several million EUR EUR Children’s soft More than a couple of Several hundreds of accessories18 million EUR thousands of EUR Women’s shoes Several hundred million More than €100million EUR Men’s shoes Almost €200million EUR Several tens of millions of EUR Children’s shoes Several million EUR Few million EUR

27. That concludes my summary of Mr Volpi’s evidence insofar as I consider it necessary.

28. I note that the evidence given by Ms Gibbs goes specifically to the question of bad faith. I do not, therefore, propose to summarise it here but will return to it below as necessary.

29. That concludes my summary of the opponent’s evidence insofar as I consider it necessary.

The Applicant’s Evidence

30. The applicant filed evidence in the form of the witness statement of Dr Bernard Mulholland dated 26 October 2020, which is accompanied by 1 exhibit.

31. Dr Mulholland raises two issues in his statement:

a) He states that he was not copied into the full evidence filed by the opponent and, consequently, intends to respond only to the evidence that he has been provided with.

17 Coats, outerwear, jackets, top/shirt, t-shirts and polo shirts, trousers, skirts, dresses, overalls, knitwear, swimwear, suits, sweatshirts. 18 Hats, scarves, gloves, bibs, bathrobes, towels, blankets, ties, earmuffs, hair accessories.

b) He notes that the opponent’s evidence includes reference to the shareholding of the opponent company and, consequently, calls into question whether the opponent is the correct registered proprietor for the earlier mark.

I will deal with both of these points as preliminary issues below.

32. Dr Mulholland suggests that “Gucci” has become a slang-term meaning ‘good’ or ‘great’. In this regard, he has filed a print out from the Merriam-Webster dictionary which states:

“What does Gucci mean? Gucci is used as an adjective generally to mean “fancy, very fashionable”; “good, fine”; “great, excellent”.

Where did Gucci come from? The luxury brand Gucci is one of the most famous in the world. Its symbol – two linked G’s adorns purses and shirts and the like the world over. These days the brand’s name is seeing some use as an informal term with a variety of meanings that range from “good” to “great”, along with some “fashionable” or “fancy” use in there too.

Not surprisingly, the “fashionable” meaning is likely the oldest: currently, the earliest evidence we’ve found of this use of Gucci is from September 1999 issue of Harper’s Bazaar, in which singer Lenny Kravitz describes his very stylish liquid-blue bedroom as “very Gucci”.”19

33. A print out from the Urban Dictionary states:20

“A versatile slang term based on the luxury fashion brand meaning okay/good/great/awesome/fresh/etc. Originally used in the streets but now popularized by the masses […]”

19 Exhibit 1 20 Exhibit 2

34. Dr Mulholland notes that other businesses have used the word Gucci, such as a chip shop in Belfast and Rapper/Hip Hop artist called Gucci Mane.

35. Dr Mulholland also notes that you can buy a number of domain names which include the word Gucci.

36. Dr Mulholland also claims that the applicant and the opponent have different target demographics, which will prevent any confusion from arising.

37. That concludes my summary of the applicant’s evidence insofar as I consider it necessary.

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

The Applicant’s Receipt of the Opponent’s Evidence

38. I will deal first with the applicant’s claim not to have been provided with a copy of the opponent’s evidence.

39. Following the comments made in the applicant’s evidence, this Tribunal wrote to the applicant as follows:

“We note the comments in your witness statement that you have only been able to respond to the re-filed witness statement of Vanni Volpi dated 25 August 2020.

When the opponent originally filed its evidence (i.e. the original witness statement of Mr Volpi dated 28 July 2020 plus 16 exhibits and the witness statement of Joanna Laura Gibbs dated 30 July 2020 plus 7 exhibits) on 31 July 2020, this was copied to you at [email protected] and [email protected].

On 6 August 2020, the opponent contacted the Tribunal as it was concerned that it had received a bounce back message from your [email protected] email address and that, due to other proceedings between the parties, you may no longer have access to your [email protected] email address.

By email dated 7 August 2020, you confirmed that the above email addresses were both still in use. By email dated 12 August 2020, you confirmed to the Tribunal that your [email protected] email address continued to be your preferred email address for the purposes of these proceedings.

We note than on 12 August 2020, the opponent provided you with a OneDrive link to the evidence originally filed on 31 July 2020 (as above).

Following the Registry’s preliminary view regarding the opponent’s confidentiality request, the opponent filed its amended evidence on 26 August 2020. The re-filed evidence took the form of the amended witness statement of Mr Volpi dated 25 August 2020. The covering letter which accompanied that amended evidence stated:

“No revisions have been made to Exhibits VV1 to VV16 to the witness statement of Vanni Volpi, or to the witness statement of Joanna Laura Gibbs or its exhibits. Accordingly, we are not re-filing copies of these documents.”

On 28 August 2020, in light of the above, the Tribunal provided you with 2 months in which to file your evidence in chief i.e. on or before 26 October 2020.

When you filed your evidence on 26 October 2020, we note that it included the statement:

“[…] In the accompanying letter the Opponent explains that they chose not to include other material: ‘Exhibits VV1 to VV16 to the witness statement of Vanni Volpi, or to the witness statement of Joanna Laura

Gibbs or its exhibits’. In a previous communication the Opponent had claimed to send material that was ‘bounced back’ and so was not received by the Applicant. Therefore the Applicant is only to respond to the material received in the form of the witness statement from Vanni Volpi dated 25 August 2020.”

As noted above, the entirety of the opponent’s evidence in chief (including the exhibits to Mr Volpi’s statement and the statement of Ms Gibbs and its accompanying exhibits) was sent to both your nominated email address and your [email protected] email address on 31 July 2020. Notwithstanding the ‘bounce back’ message referred to from your nominated email address, this evidence was sent to you again by the opponent on 12 August 2020, in the form of a OneDrive link. At no point have you indicated that you were unable to access that link or the evidence contained within it. We understand that the opponent did not receive a bounce back from your [email protected] email address and you have confirmed that you continue to have access to that account.

It appears to the Tribunal that every effort has been made by the opponent to provide you with access to its evidence in chief. It is not clear to the Tribunal why you have been unable to access the evidence via the OneDrive link provided or via the email to your [email protected] email address.

We understand from your comments that you feel you have been unable to respond to the entirety of the opponent’s evidence. In light of the above, it is the Registry’s preliminary view that you have had access to the opponent’s evidence (via email to your [email protected] account and via the OneDrive link) and, consequently, there is no reason for you not to have responded to this, if you wished to do so, in your evidence. Consequently, it is the Registry’s preliminary view that no further steps are required to provide you with access to the opponent’s evidence in chief and no further time should be allowed for you to file further evidence.

If you disagree, you are entitled to challenge this preliminary view. If you wish to do so, then you should request a hearing within the next 7 days, that is on or before 10 November 2020. If a hearing is requested, it will take place on Wednesday 18 November 2020 at 10:00am.

Please note, if no hearing is requested, the evidence filed will be admitted and the deadline will be set for the opponent to confirm if they wish to file evidence in reply.”

40. The applicant did not challenge the Registry’s preliminary view. Consequently, I will determine these proceedings based upon the evidence before me.

Ownership of the Earlier Mark

41. I note the applicant’s concerns regarding the ownership of the earlier right relied upon in these proceedings. The relevant section of the opponent’s evidence, referred to by the applicant is:

“9. In 1999, Pinault-Printemps-Redoute (PPR) acquired a 42% stake in Gucci, and by 2004 had incrementally increased its stake to 99.4%. PPR changed its name to Kering in 2013. […]”

42. These comments relate to the shareholding of the opponent company. These have no bearing upon trade mark ownership. A company of this kind is a legal entity in own right and capable of holding property, irrespective of ownership of the company itself. Consequently, the shareholdings of that company are not relevant to the question of ownership.

The Domain Name Dispute

43. I understand that there have been separate proceedings between the parties regarding the ownership of the domain name – gucci.llc. The merits of the domain name dispute were referenced in the applicant’s counterstatement. For the avoidance of doubt, it is only the dispute regarding the application for the trade mark in issue that

17 will be addressed by this decision and the outcome of the domain name dispute or the merits of it will not factor into that assessment.

Co-existence

44. In its counterstatement, the applicant refers to the fact that certain companies are able to co-exist without the risk of confusion/misrepresentation. It is entirely possible for companies with similar/the same marks to trade alongside each other in some circumstances (such as where they have reached a commercial agreement or have been trading for long periods of time alongside each other). However, the earliest reference to the applicant trading prior to the relevant date comes from Ms Gibbs’ evidence, which includes a cease and desist letter dated May 2019 regarding the applicant’s use of the applied-for mark as a domain name.21 I have no evidence as to when this use started. Given that this only amounts to one month of trading prior to the relevant date, I dismiss this line of argument.

DECISION

Section 5(2)(b)

45. Section 5(2)(b) of the Act reads as follows:

“5(2) A trade mark shall not be registered if because –

(a)…

(b) it is similar to an earlier trade mark and is to be registered for goods or services identical with or similar to those for which the earlier trade mark is protected

there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, which includes the likelihood of association with the earlier trade mark.”

21 Exhibit JG5

46. By virtue of its earlier filing date, the trade mark upon which the opponent relies qualifies as an earlier trade mark pursuant to section 6 of the Act. As the earlier trade mark had completed its registration process more than five years before the application date of the mark in issue, it is subject to proof of use pursuant to section 6A of the Act.

47. Although the UK has left the EU, section 6(3)(a) of the European (Withdrawal) Act 2018 requires tribunals to apply EU-derived national law in accordance with EU law as it stood at the end of the transition period. The provisions of the Act relied upon in these proceedings are derived from an EU Directive. This is why this decision continues to make reference to the trade mark case-law of EU courts.

Proof of use

48. I will begin by assessing whether there has been genuine use of the earlier marks. The relevant statutory provisions are as follows:

“Raising of relative grounds in opposition proceedings in case of non-use

6A(1) This section applies where

(a) an application for registration of a trade mark has been published,

(b) there is an earlier trade mark of a kind falling within section 6(1)(a), (b) or (ba) in relation to which the conditions set out in section 5(1), (2) or (3) obtain, and

(1A) In this section “the relevant period” means the period of 5 years ending with the date of the application for registration mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (where applicable) the date of the priority claimed for that application.

(2) In opposition proceedings, the registrar shall not refuse to register the trade mark by reason of the earlier trade mark unless the use conditions are met.

(3) The use conditions are met if –

(a) within the relevant period the earlier trade mark has been put to genuine use in the United Kingdom by the proprietor or with his consent in relation to the goods or services for which it is registered, or

(b) the earlier trade mark has not been so used, but there are proper reasons for non- use.

(4) For these purposes -

(a) use of a trade mark includes use in a form (the “variant form”) differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark in the form in which it was registered (regardless of whether or not the trade mark in the variant form is also registered in the name of the proprietor), and

(b) use in the United Kingdom includes affixing the trade mark to goods or to the packaging of goods in the United Kingdom solely for export purposes.

(5) In relation to a European Union trade mark or international trade mark (EC), any reference in subsection (3) or (4) to the United Kingdom shall be construed as a reference to the European Union.

(5A) […]

(6) Where an earlier trade mark satisfies the use conditions in respect of some only of the goods or services for which it is registered, it shall be treated for the

purposes of this section as if it were registered only in respect of those goods or services.”

49. Section 100 of the Act is also relevant, which reads:

“100. If in any civil proceedings under this Act a question arises as to the use to which a registered trade mark has been put, it is for the proprietor to show what use has been made of it.”

50. Pursuant to section 6A of the Act, the relevant period for assessing whether there has been genuine use of the earlier mark is the five-year period ending with the date of the application in issue i.e. 14 June 2014 to 13 June 2019.

51. In Walton International Ltd & Anor v Verweij Fashion BV [2018] EWHC 1608 (Ch) Arnold J summarised the law relating to genuine use as follows:

“114……The CJEU has considered what amounts to “genuine use” of a trade mark in a series of cases: Case C-40/01 Ansul BV v Ajax Brandbeveiliging BV [2003] ECR I-2439, La Mer (cited above), Case C-416/04 P Sunrider Corp v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) [2006] ECR I-4237, Case C-442/07 Verein Radetsky-Order v Bundervsvereinigung Kamaradschaft ‘Feldmarschall Radetsky’ [2008] ECR I- 9223, Case C-495/07 Silberquelle GmbH v Maselli-Strickmode GmbH [2009] ECR I-2759, Case C-149/11 Leno Merken BV v Hagelkruis Beheer BV [EU:C:2012:816], [2013] ETMR 16, Case C-609/11 P Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH v Centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co KG [EU:C:2013:592], [2014] ETMR, Case C-141/13 P Reber Holding & Co KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) [EU:C:2014:2089] and Case C-689/15 W.F. Gözze Frottierweberei GmbH v Verein Bremer Baumwollbörse [EU:C:2017:434], [2017] Bus LR 1795.

115. The principles established by these cases may be summarised as follows:

(1) Genuine use means actual use of the trade mark by the proprietor or by a third party with authority to use the mark: Ansul at [35] and [37].

(2) The use must be more than merely token, that is to say, serving solely to preserve the rights conferred by the registration of the mark: Ansul at [36]; Sunrider at [70]; Verein at [13]; Leno at [29]; Centrotherm at [71]; Reber at [29].

(3) The use must be consistent with the essential function of a trade mark, which is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the goods or services to the consumer or end user by enabling him to distinguish the goods or services from others which have another origin: Ansul at [36]; Sunrider at [70]; Verein at [13]; Silberquelle at [17]; Leno at [29]; Centrotherm at [71]. Accordingly, affixing of a trade mark on goods as a label of quality is not genuine use unless it guarantees, additionally and simultaneously, to consumers that those goods come from a single undertaking under the control of which the goods are manufactured and which is responsible for their quality: Gözze at [43]-[51].

(4) Use of the mark must relate to goods or services which are already marketed or which are about to be marketed and for which preparations to secure customers are under way, particularly in the form of advertising campaigns: Ansul at [37]. Internal use by the proprietor does not suffice: Ansul at [37]; Verein at [14] and [22]. Nor does the distribution of promotional items as a reward for the purchase of other goods and to encourage the sale of the latter: Silberquelle at [20]-[21]. But use by a non-profit making association can constitute genuine use: Verein at [16]-[23].

(5) The use must be by way of real commercial exploitation of the mark on the market for the relevant goods or services, that is to say, use in accordance with the commercial raison d’être of the mark, which is to create or preserve an outlet for the goods or services that bear the mark: Ansul at [37]-[38]; Verein at [14]; Silberquelle at [18]; Centrotherm at [71]; Reber at [29].

(6) All the relevant facts and circumstances must be taken into account in determining whether there is real commercial exploitation of the mark,

including: (a) whether such use is viewed as warranted in the economic sector concerned to maintain or create a share in the market for the goods and services in question; (b) the nature of the goods or services; (c) the characteristics of the market concerned; (d) the scale and frequency of use of the mark; (e) whether the mark is used for the purpose of marketing all the goods and services covered by the mark or just some of them; (f) the evidence that the proprietor is able to provide; and (g) the territorial extent of the use: Ansul at [38] and [39]; La Mer at [22]-[23]; Sunrider at [70]-[71], [76]; Leno at [29]-[30], [56]; Centrotherm at [72]-[76]; Reber at [29], [32]-[34].

(7) Use of the mark need not always be quantitatively significant for it to be deemed genuine. Even minimal use may qualify as genuine use if it is deemed to be justified in the economic sector concerned for the purpose of creating or preserving market share for the relevant goods or services. For example, use of the mark by a single client which imports the relevant goods can be sufficient to demonstrate that such use is genuine, if it appears that the import operation has a genuine commercial justification for the proprietor. Thus there is no de minimis rule: Ansul at [39]; La Mer at [21], [24] and [25]; Sunrider at [72] and [76]-[77]; Leno at [55].

(8) It is not the case that every proven commercial use of the mark may automatically be deemed to constitute genuine use: Reber at [32].”

52. As the earlier mark is an EUTM, the comments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in Leno Merken BV v Hagelkruis Beheer BV, Case C- 149/11, are relevant. The court noted that:

“36. It should, however, be observed that […] the territorial scope of the use is not a separate condition for genuine use but one of the factors determining genuine use, which must be included in the overall analysis and examined at the same time as other such factors. In that regard, the phrase ‘in the Community’ is intended to define the geographical market serving as the reference point for all consideration of whether a Community trade mark has been put to genuine use.”

And:

“50. Whilst there is admittedly some justification for thinking that a Community trade mark should – because it enjoys more extensive territorial protection than a national trade mark – be used in a larger area than the territory of a single Member State in order for the use to be regarded as ‘genuine use’, it cannot be ruled out that, in certain circumstances, the market for the goods or services for which a Community trade mark has been registered is in fact restricted to the territory of a single Member State. In such a case, use of the Community trade mark on that territory might satisfy the conditions both for genuine use of a Community trade mark and for genuine use of a national trade mark.”

And:

“55. Since the assessment of whether the use of the trade mark is genuine is carried out by reference to all the facts and circumstances relevant to establishing whether the commercial exploitation of the mark serves to create or maintain market shares for the goods or services for which it was registered, it is impossible to determine a priori, and in the abstract, what territorial scope should be chosen in order to determine whether the use of the mark is genuine or not. A de minimis rule, which would not allow the national court to appraise all the circumstances of the dispute before it, cannot therefore be laid down (see, by analogy, the order in La Mer Technology, paragraphs 25 and 27, and the judgment in Sunrider v OHIM, paragraphs 72 and 77)”.

At paragraphs 57 and 58, the court held that:

“Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the territorial borders of the Member States should be disregarded in the assessment of whether a trade mark has been put to ‘genuine use in the Community’ within the meaning of that provision.

A Community trade mark is put to ‘genuine use’ within the meaning of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 when it is used in accordance with its essential function and for the purpose of maintaining or creating market share within the European Community for the goods or services covered by it. It is for the referring court to assess whether the conditions are met in the main proceedings, taking account of all the relevant facts and circumstances, including the characteristics of the mark concerned, the nature of the goods or services protected by the trade mark and the territorial extent and the scale of the use as well as its frequency and regularity.”

53. In The London Taxi Corporation Limited v Frazer-Nash Research Limited & Ecotive Limited, [2016] EWHC 52, Arnold J. reviewed the case law since the Leno case and concluded as follows:

“228. Since the decision of the Court of Justice in Leno there have been a number of decisions of OHIM Boards of Appeal, the General Court and national courts with respect to the question of the geographical extent of the use required for genuine use in the Community. It does not seem to me that a clear picture has yet emerged as to how the broad principles laid down in Leno are to be applied. It is sufficient for present purposes to refer by way of illustration to two cases which I am aware have attracted comment.

229. In Case T-278/13 Now Wireless Ltd v Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) the General Court upheld at [47] the finding of the Board of Appeal that there had been genuine use of the contested mark in relation to the services in issue in London and the Thames Valley. On that basis, the General Court dismissed the applicant’s challenge to the Board of Appeal’s conclusion that there had been genuine use of the mark in the Community. At first blush, this appears to be a decision to the effect that use in rather less than the whole of one Member State is sufficient to constitute genuine use in the Community. On closer examination, however, it appears that the applicant’s argument was not that use within London and the Thames Valley was not sufficient to constitute genuine use in the Community, but rather that the Board of Appeal was wrong to find that the mark had been used in those

areas, and that it should have found that he mark had only been used in parts of London: see [42] and [54]-[58]. This stance may have been due to the fact that the applicant was based in Guilford, and thus a finding which still left open the possibility of conversion of the community trade mark to a national trade mark may not have sufficed for its purposes.

230. In The Sofa Workshop Ltd v Sofaworks Ltd [2015] EWHC 1773 (IPEC), [2015] ETMR 37 at [25] His Honour Judge Hacon interpreted Leno as establishing that “genuine use in the Community will in general require use in more than one Member State” but “an exception to that general requirement arises where the market for the relevant goods or services is restricted to the territory of a single Member State.” On this basis, he went on to hold at [33]- [40] that extensive use of the trade mark in the UK, and one sale in Denmark, was not sufficient to amount to genuine use in the Community. As I understand it, this decision is presently under appeal and it would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment on the merits of the decision. All I will say is that, while I find the thrust of Judge Hacon’s analysis of Leno persuasive, I would not myself express the applicable principles in terms of a general rule and an exception to that general rule. Rather, I would prefer to say that the assessment is a multi- factorial one which includes the geographical extent of the use.”

54. The General Court (“GC”) restated its interpretation of Leno Merken in Case T- 398/13, TVR Automotive Ltd v OHIM (see paragraph 57 of the judgment). This case concerned national (rather than local) use of what was then known as a Community trade mark (now a European Union trade mark).

55. Whether the use shown is sufficient for this purpose will depend on whether there has been real commercial exploitation of the EUTM, in the course of trade, sufficient to create or maintain a market for the goods/services at issue in the Union during the relevant 5 year period. In making the required assessment I am required to consider all relevant factors, including:

a. The scale and frequency of the use shown;

b. The nature of the use shown;

c. The goods and services for which use has been shown;

d. The nature of those goods/services and the market(s) for them; and

e. The geographical extent of the use shown.

56. Proven use of a mark which fails to establish that “the commercial exploitation of the mark is real” because the use would not be “viewed as warranted in the economic sector concerned to maintain or create a share in the market for the goods or services protected by the mark” is, therefore, not genuine use.

57. There are extensive examples of the earlier mark being used in word only format. Clearly, this will be use upon which the opponent can rely. There are also examples of the earlier mark being used in stylised, often cursive, fonts as shown above. For the avoidance of doubt, I consider these to be use of the mark as registered as registration of a word only mark covers use in any standard typeface.

58. An assessment of genuine use is a global assessment, which includes looking at the evidential picture as a whole, not whether each individual piece of evidence shows use by itself.22

59. The opponent’s evidence confirms that its first store was opened in Italy in 1921, with its first UK-store opening in London in 1961. Mr Volpi provided figures for market share for “Western Europe”, although it is not clear what the market share figures are for the European Union specifically. Examples have been provided of the earlier mark in use in stores located in the UK and Italy. The opponent has stores or concessions across the UK and Italy. The visitors to the opponent’s website for the years 2015 to 2019 run into several million per annum. The opponent has also had long-standing relationships spanning the relevant period with third parties through which it sells its products. Mr Volpi provided sales figures for goods sold in the EU (excluding the UK)

22 New Yorker SHK Jeans GmbH & Co KG v OHIM, T-415/09

27 and the UK, broken down by goods. These are clearly extensive sales figures and are supported by retail receipts to end users dated during the relevant period. The opponent confirms that it spent tens of millions of Euros on marketing its products in the EU during the relevant period. Various examples of advertising in UK publications have been provided. The opponent has presented its goods at a number of fashion shows during the relevant period and confirms that its mark always appears on products (whether it be stamped into leather, on labels or product packaging).

60. Taking all of this into account, I am satisfied that the opponent has demonstrated genuine use of the earlier mark in the EU during the relevant period.

61. I must now consider whether, or the extent to which, the evidence shows use of the earlier marks in relation to the goods relied upon. In Euro Gida Sanayi Ve Ticaret Limited v Gima (UK) Limited, BL O/345/10, Mr Geoffrey Hobbs Q.C. as the Appointed Person summed up the law as being:

“In the present state of the law, fair protection is to be achieved by identifying and defining not the particular examples of goods or services for which there has been genuine use but the particular categories of goods or services they should realistically be taken to exemplify. For that purpose the terminology of the resulting specification should accord with the perceptions of the average consumer of the goods or services concerned.”

62. In Property Renaissance Ltd (t/a Titanic Spa) v Stanley Dock Hotel Ltd (t/a Titanic Hotel Liverpool) & Ors [2016] EWHC 3103 (Ch), Mr Justice Carr summed up the law relating to partial revocation as follows:

“iii) Where the trade mark proprietor has made genuine use of the mark in respect of some goods or services covered by the general wording of the specification, and not others, it is necessary for the court to arrive at a fair specification in the circumstance, which may require amendment; Thomas Pink Ltd v Victoria’s Secret UK Ltd [2014] EWHC 2631 (Ch) (“Thomas Pink”) at [52].

iv) In cases of partial revocation, pursuant to section 46(5) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, the question is how would the average consumer fairly describe the services in relation to which the trade mark has been used; Thomas Pink at [53].

v) It is not the task of the court to describe the use made by the trade mark proprietor in the narrowest possible terms unless that is what the average consumer would do. For example, in Pan World Brands v Tripp Ltd (Extreme Trade Mark) [2008] RPC 2 it was held that use in relation to holdalls justified a registration for luggage generally; Thomas Pink at [53].

vi) A trade mark proprietor should not be allowed to monopolise the use of a trade mark in relation to a general category of goods or services simply because he has used it in relation to a few. Conversely, a proprietor cannot reasonably be expected to use a mark in relation to all possible variations of the particular goods or services covered by the registration. Maier v Asos Plc [2015] EWCA Civ 220 ("Asos") at [56] and [60].

vii) In some cases, it may be possible to identify subcategories of goods or services within a general term which are capable of being viewed independently. In such cases, use in relation to only one subcategory will not constitute use in relation to all other subcategories. On the other hand, protection must not be cut down to those precise goods or services in relation to which the mark has been used. This would be to strip the proprietor of protection for all goods or services which the average consumer would consider to belong to the same group or category as those for which the mark has been used and which are not in substance different from them; Mundipharma AG v OHIM (Case T-256/04) ECR II-449; EU:T:2007:46.”

63. The opponent’s class 25 specification covers the broad categories of “clothing”, “footwear” and “headgear”. The opponent has provided sales figures for these goods, as well as others not covered by its specification. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to assume that at least a significant proportion of those sales figures would relate to the goods in issue. This is further supported by extensive examples of such goods in

catalogues, look books, advertisements and fashion shows. At the hearing, Ms Blythe submitted that the extent of the opponent’s use in relation to class 25 goods was such that it justified reliance upon the broad terms “clothing, footwear, headgear”. In this regard, I note that the breadth of use does appear to be significant; it has been used in relation to a broad range of goods including both formal and casual wear and goods for women, men and children. In this regard, I note that some of the opponent’s long standing third-party stockists include children’s wear outlets. With regard to the class 18 goods, there are a range of examples of use in relation to handbags, purses, travelling bags, backpacks, briefcases, wallets and belts. However, I do not consider the use broad enough to allow the term “leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of these materials and not included in other classes” to be retained in its entirety. Taking all of this into account, I consider a fair specification for the earlier mark to be:

Class 18 Leather belts; handbags; purses; travelling bags; backpacks; briefcases; pocket wallets.

Class 25 Clothing, footwear, headgear.

Section 5(2)(b) – case law

64. The following principles are gleaned from the decisions of the EU courts in Sabel BV v Puma AG, Case C-251/95, Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc, Case C-39/97, Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co GmbH v Klijsen Handel B.V. Case C-342/97, Marca Mode CV v Adidas AG & Adidas Benelux BV, Case C-425/98, Matratzen Concord GmbH v OHIM, Case C-3/03, Medion AG v. Thomson Multimedia Sales Germany & Austria GmbH, Case C-120/04, Shaker di L. Laudato & C. Sas v OHIM, Case C-334/05P and Bimbo SA v OHIM, Case C-591/12P:

(a) The likelihood of confusion must be appreciated globally, taking account of all relevant factors;

(b) the matter must be judged through the eyes of the average consumer of the goods or services in question, who is deemed to be reasonably well informed and reasonably circumspect and observant, but who rarely has the chance to

make direct comparisons between marks and must instead rely upon the imperfect picture of them he has kept in his mind, and whose attention varies according to the category of goods or services in question;

(d) the visual, aural and conceptual similarities of the marks must normally be assessed by reference to the overall impressions created by the marks bearing in mind their distinctive and dominant components, but it is only when all other components of a complex mark are negligible that it is permissible to make the comparison solely on the basis of the dominant elements;

(e) nevertheless, the overall impression conveyed to the public by a composite trade mark may be dominated by one or more of its components;

(f) however, it is also possible that in a particular case an element corresponding to an earlier trade mark may retain an independent distinctive role in a composite mark, without necessarily constituting a dominant element of that mark;

(g) a lesser degree of similarity between the goods or services may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the marks, and vice versa;

(h) there is a greater likelihood of confusion where the earlier mark has a highly distinctive character, either per se or because of the use that has been made of it;

(i) mere association, in the strict sense that the later mark brings to mind the earlier mark, is not sufficient;

(j) the reputation of a mark does not give grounds for presuming a likelihood of confusion simply because of a likelihood of association in the strict sense;

(k) if the association between the marks creates a risk that the public will wrongly believe that the respective goods or services come from the same or economically-linked undertakings, there is a likelihood of confusion.

Comparison of goods

65. In Gérard Meric v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, Case T- 133/05, the General Court (“GC”) stated that:

“29. In addition, the goods can be considered as identical when the goods designated by the earlier mark are included in a more general category, designated by trade mark application (Case T-388/00 Institut für Lernsysteme v OHIM – Educational Services (ELS) [2002] ECR II-4301, paragraph 53) or where the goods designated by the trade mark application are included in a more general category designated by the earlier mark.”

66. In the Treat case, [1996] R.P.C. 281, Jacob J. (as he then was) identified the following factors for assessing similarity:

(a) The respective uses of the respective goods or services;

(b) The respective users of the respective goods or services;

(d) The respective trade channels through which the goods or services reach the market;

(e) In the case of self-serve consumer items, where in practice they are respectively found or likely to be found in supermarkets and, in particular, whether they are or are likely to be found on the same or different shelves;

(f) The extent to which the respective goods or services are competitive. This inquiry may take into account how those in trade classify goods, for instance,

whether market research companies, who of course act for industry, put the goods or services in the same or different sectors.

67. I note the applicant’s submissions regarding the parties’ differing target demographics. That might well be the case. However, I must assess the likelihood of confusion based upon notional use of the specifications applied for/registered. The way in which the parties intend to trade (or, indeed, their intended audiences) is not relevant to my assessment.

Class 18

68. “Attaché bags”, “Attache cases”, “Attaché cases”, “Attache cases made of imitation leather”, “Attache cases made of leather”, “Briefcases”, “Briefcases and attache cases”, “Briefcases for documents”, “Briefcases [leather goods]”, “Briefcases [leatherware]”, “Briefcases made of leather” and “Leather briefcases” in the applicant’s specification are either self-evidently or Meric identical to “briefcases” in the opponent’s specification.

69. The following goods in the applicant’s specification are all self-evidently identical or identical on the principle outlined in Meric to “travelling bags” in the opponent’s specification:

Airline travel bags; Articles of luggage; Bags for travel; Bags (Garment -) for travel; Cabin bags; Carriers for suits, for shirts and for dresses; Carriers for suits, shirts and dresses; Carry-on bags; Carry-on suitcases; Courier bags; Flexible bags for garments; Flight bags; Garment bags; Garment bags for travel; Garment bags for travel made of leather; Garment carriers; Leather suitcases; Luggage; Luggage bags; Motorized suitcases; Overnight bags; Overnight cases; Overnight suitcases; Roller suitcases; Shoe bags for travel; Small suitcases; Suit bags; Suit carriers; Suitcases; Suitcases, motorized, rideable; Suitcases with wheels; Travel baggage; Travel bags; Travel cases; Travel garment covers; Travel luggage; Traveling bags; Traveling sets; Traveling sets [leatherware]; Traveling trunks; Travelling bags; Travelling bags [leatherware]; Travelling bags made of imitation leather; Travelling bags made

of leather; Travelling cases; Travelling cases of leather; Travelling sets; Travelling sets [leatherware]; Travelling trunks; Trunks and suitcases; Trunks and traveling bags; Trunks and travelling bags; Trunks being luggage; Trunks [luggage]; Weekend bags; Wheeled luggage; Wheeled suitcases.

Even if I am wrong in this finding, the goods will overlap in method of use, purpose, trade channels, user and nature. There will be competition between them. Consequently, I consider the goods to be highly similar.

70. “Back packs”, “Backpacks”, “Backpacks [rucksacks]”, “School backpacks” and “Small backpacks” in the applicant’s specification are self-evidently identical or identical on the principle outlined in Meric to “backpacks” in the opponent’s specification.

71. The following goods in the applicant’s specification are all self-evidently identical or identical on the principle outlined in Meric to “pocket wallets” in the opponent’s specification:

Card holders made of leather; Card wallets; Card wallets [leatherware]; Credit card cases [wallets]; Credit card holders; Credit card holders made of imitation leather; Credit card holders made of leather; Credit-card holders; Leather credit card cases; Leather credit card holder; Leather credit card wallets; Leather wallets; Pocket wallets; Wallets; Wallets for attachment to belts; Wallets including card holders; Wallets incorporating card holders; Wallets, not of precious metal; Wallets [not of precious metal]; Wallets of precious metal; Wallets (Pocket -);Wallets with card compartments; Wrist-mounted wallets.

72. The following goods in the applicant’s specification are all self-evidently identical or identical on the principle outlined in Meric to “purses” in the opponent’s specification:

Change purses; Clutch purses; Clutches [purses]; Coin purses; Evening purses; Multi-purpose purses; Purses; Purses [leatherware]; Purses made of precious metal; Purses, not made of precious metal; Purses not made of precious metal; Purses, not made of precious metal [handbags]; Purses [not of precious metal]; Purses, not of precious metal; Purses, not of precious metal [handbags]; Purses of precious metal; Small clutch purses; Small purses; Wrist mounted purses.

73. The following goods in the applicant’s specification are all self-evidently identical or identical on the principle outlined in Meric to “handbags” in the opponent’s specification:

All-purpose carrying bags; Baggage; Bags; Bags made of imitation leather; Bags made of leather; Canvas bags; Carry-all bags; Carrying bags; Casual bags; Clutch bags; Clutch handbags; Clutch purses [handbags]; Crossbody bags; Cross-body bags; Evening bags; Evening handbags; Fashion handbags; Gentlemen's handbags; Gent's handbags; Hand bags; Handbags; Handbags for ladies; Handbags made of imitations leather; Handbags made of leather; Leather bags; Leather handbags; Shoulder bags; Slouch handbags; Small bags for men.

74. “Handbags, purses and wallets”, “Leather bags and wallets” and “Luggage, bags, wallets and other carriers” in the applicant’s specification are all self-evidently identical or identical on the principle outlined in Meric to “handbags”, “pocket wallets”, “travelling bags” and “purses” in the opponent’s specification.

75. “Baggage tags”, “Luggage labels”, “Luggage tags” and “Tags for luggage” in the applicant’s specification all overlap in user with “travelling bags” in the opponent’s specification. The goods differ in nature, purpose and method of use. However, they overlap in trade channels. They are also complementary within the meaning of the case law.23 Consequently, I consider the goods to be similar to a medium degree.

23 Boston Scientific Ltd v Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Case T-325/06

76. The following remaining goods in the applicant’s specification are all types of bags and carriers:

All purpose sport bags; All-purpose athletic bags; All-purpose sports bags; Athletic bags; Athletics bags; Bags for climbers; Bags for sports; Beauty cases; Bucket bags; Bum bags; Bumbags; Canvas shopping bags; Cosmetic bags; Cosmetic bags sold empty; Cosmetic cases sold empty; Cosmetic purses; Daypacks; Diplomatic bags; Gladstone bags; Hiking bags; Hiking rucksacks; Kit bags; Knapsacks; Leather shopping bags; Makeup bags; Make-up bags; Make-up bags sold empty; Make-up boxes; Make-up cases; Messenger bags; Pochettes; Pouchettes; Ruck sacks; Rucksacks; Rucksacks for mountaineers; Rucksacks on castors; Saddlebags; Satchels; Shoe bags; Shopping bags; Shopping bags made of skin; Shopping bags with wheels attached; Small rucksacks; Souvenir bags; Sport bags; Sports bags; Sports [Bags for -]; Sports packs; Tote bags; Two-wheeled shopping bags; Valises; Waist bags; Waist packs; Waist pouches; Wheeled bags; Wheeled shopping bags.

77. They will all overlap in purpose, method of use, nature and user with the opponent’s “handbags” and “travelling bags”. There will be a clear overlap in trade channels and there may be a degree of competition between them. Taking all of this into account, I consider the goods to be highly similar.

Class 25

78. “Articles of clothing”, “Clothes” and “Clothing” in the applicant’s specification are self-evidently identical to “clothing” in the opponent’s specification.

79. The remainder of the applicant’s class 25 goods fall within the broader categories of either “clothing”, “footwear” or “headgear” in the opponent’s specification. These goods can, therefore, be considered identical on the principle outlined in Meric.

The average consumer and the nature of the purchasing act

80. As the case law above indicates, it is necessary for me to determine who the average consumer is for the respective parties’ goods. I must then determine the manner in which the goods are likely to be selected by the average consumer. In Hearst Holdings Inc, Fleischer Studios Inc v A.V.E.L.A. Inc, Poeticgem Limited, The Partnership (Trading) Limited, U Wear Limited, J Fox Limited, [2014] EWHC 439 (Ch), Birss J described the average consumer in these terms:

“60. The trade mark questions have to be approached from the point of view of the presumed expectations of the average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably circumspect. The parties were agreed that the relevant person is a legal construct and that the test is to be applied objectively by the court from the point of view of that constructed person. The words “average” denotes that the person is typical. The term “average” does not denote some form of numerical mean, mode or median.”

81. At the hearing, Ms Blythe submitted that the average consumer would be “an ordinary member of the public”. I agree. The price of the goods is likely to vary and they are likely to be a reasonably frequent purchase. However, even where the cost is low various factors will be taken into consideration such as aesthetic, materials and suitability for particular purpose. Taking all of this into consideration, I consider it likely that a medium degree of attention will be paid during the purchasing process.

82. The goods are likely to be self-selected from the shelves of a retail outlet or their online or catalogue equivalent. Visual considerations are, therefore, likely to dominate the selection process. However, I do not discount that there will also be an aural component to the purchase, as advice may be sought from a sales assistant or representative.

Comparison of trade marks

83. It is clear from Sabel BV v. Puma AG (particularly paragraph 23) that the average consumer normally perceives a trade mark as a whole and does not proceed to

analyse its various details. The same case also explains that the visual, aural and conceptual similarities of the trade marks must be assessed by reference to the overall impressions created by the trade marks, bearing in mind their distinctive and dominant components. The CJEU stated, at paragraph 34 of its judgment in Case C-591/12P, Bimbo SA v OHIM, that:

“… it is necessary to ascertain, in each individual case, the overall impression made on the target public by the sign for which registration is sought, by means of, inter alia, an analysis of the components of a sign and of their relative weight in the perception of the target public, and then, in the light of that overall impression and all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case, to assess the likelihood of confusion.”

84. It would be wrong, therefore, to artificially dissect the trade marks, although it is necessary to take into account the distinctive and dominant components of the marks and to give due weight to any other features which are not negligible and therefore contribute to the overall impressions created by the marks.

85. The respective trade marks are shown below:

Opponent’s trade mark Applicant’s trade mark

GUCCI gucci.llc

86. The earlier mark consists of the word GUCCI presented in upper case font. There are no other elements to contribute to the overall impression, which lies in the word itself. The applicant’s trade mark consists of the word “gucci” in lower case font, followed by “.llc”. The letters “.llc” are, in my view, likely to be viewed as a domain name or company indication, so will be attributed less trade mark significance. Consequently, the word “gucci” plays the greater role in the overall impression, with the “.llc” playing a lesser role.

87. With regard to the similarity of the marks, at the hearing Dr Mulholland submitted that the addition of the “dot” in the applicant’s mark is of particular importance. In this regard, Dr Mulholland referred by analogy to the name of the popular recording artist Will.i.am and notes that the use of punctuation in this mark clearly distinguishes it from the ordinary name William. That may or may not be the case. However, the example provided by Dr Mulholland can clearly be distinguished from the circumstances of the present case. In the case of the former, punctuation has been inserted into a single word in order to create three component parts. In the present case, a “dot” has been inserted after the end of the word “Gucci” and before the acronym “llc”. Consequently, I consider this to be an entirely different comparison to the one referred to by Dr Mulholland.

88. Visually, the earlier mark is duplicated exactly at the start of the applicant’s mark i.e. GUCCI/gucci. In its TM8, the applicant notes that there is a difference created between the uppercase/lower case presentation of the word. However, registration of a word only mark covers use in any standard typeface and so differences created by the font will not be relevant to my assessment. The point of visual difference is the “.llc” at the end of the applicant’s mark which has no counterpart in the opponent’s mark. Consequently, I consider the marks to be visually similar to between a medium and high degree.

89. Aurally, the GUCCI/gucci element of the marks will be pronounced identically i.e. GOO-CHEE. The second part of the applicant’s mark i.e. “.llc” may not be articulated if it is viewed as a company indication or domain name. If that is the case, then the marks will be aurally identical. Otherwise, the applicant’s mark will be pronounced GOO-CHEE-DOT-ELL-ELL-SEE and the marks will be aurally similar to a medium degree.

90. Conceptually, the word GUCCI/gucci in both marks is likely to be seen as an invented or foreign language word or name. If it is viewed as an invented or foreign language word with no particular meaning then the position will be conceptually neutral. If it is viewed as a name the words will be conceptually identical. With regard to the “.llc” element of the applicant’s mark, Ms Blythe submitted that it was likely to be viewed as a domain name or a reference to the American company indication for

39 a “limited liability company”. Dr Mulholland submitted that the “limited liability company” meaning was unlikely to be identified by the UK average consumer because this is an American company-type, rather than a UK one. In my view, in the way that it is used in the applicant’s mark, the “.llc” element is likely to be seen as indicating either a particular type of domain name (such as in .com or .fr) or will be seen as a company indication (such as LLP or LTD). I accept that the latter is less likely because “llc” is not a recognised company-type in the UK. However, given that it follows the same format as acronyms such as LLP and LTD, it may still be identified as such by the average consumer even if they do not know what it stands for. Further, given that it is not uncommon for American companies to trade in the UK, the abbreviation may very well be known by the UK average consumer. In either case, it will act as a point of conceptual difference.

Distinctive character of the earlier trade mark

91. In Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co. GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV, Case C-342/97 the CJEU stated that:

“22. In determining the distinctive character of a mark and, accordingly, in assessing whether it is highly distinctive, the national court must make an overall assessment of the greater or lesser capacity of the mark to identify the goods or services for which it has been registered as coming from a particular undertaking, and thus to distinguish those goods or services from those of other undertakings (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 May 1999 in Joined Cases C- 108/97 and C-109/97 Windsurfing Chiemsee v Huber and Attenberger [1999] ECR 1-2779, paragraph 49).

23. In making that assessment, account should be taken, in particular, of the inherent characteristics of the mark, including the fact that it does or does not contain an element descriptive of the goods or services for which it has been registered; the market share held by the mark; how intensive, geographically widespread and long-standing use of the mark has been; the amount invested by the undertaking in promoting the mark; the proportion of the relevant section of the public which, because of the mark, identifies the goods or services as

originating from a particular undertaking; and statements from chambers of commerce and industry or other trade and professional associations (see Windsurfing Chiemsee, paragraph 51).”

92. Registered trade marks possess varying degrees of inherent distinctive character, ranging from the very low, because they are suggestive or allusive of a characteristic of the goods, to those with high inherent distinctive character, such as invented words which have no allusive qualities. The distinctive character of a mark can be enhanced by virtue of the use that has been made of it.

93. The applicant has made submissions and filed evidence regarding the use of the earlier mark as a slang term and by other businesses. At the hearing, Dr Mulholland gave examples such as “Gucci Sweets.llc”, “Gucci Buildings”, “Gucci Construction”, “Gucci Heraldic Press” and “Gucci Design”. As Ms Blythe noted at the hearing, the suggestion by the applicant appears to be that the opponent’s mark has become generic. Firstly, it appears from the evidence filed that the use of the phrase “very Gucci” to describe something good or positive, stems directly form the opponent’s use of its mark i.e. it stems from the opponent’s reputation. Secondly, I have no evidence as to what proportion of average consumers would be aware of this meaning and I do not find the evidence filed to be of particular assistance in this regard. Thirdly, the fact that the mark might be used by traders in other sectors (such as by rap artists or sweet shops) is entirely different from use of the trade mark for the same or highly similar goods for which the opponent has a registration. Taking all of this into account, I do not consider that this line of argument assists the applicant.

94. I will begin by assessing the inherent distinctive character of the earlier trade mark. Ms Blythe submitted that the opponent’s mark is highly distinctive. In my view, if the opponent’s mark is viewed as an invented or foreign language word with no particular meaning it will be highly distinctive. If it is viewed as a name then it may be slightly less distinctive. In this regard, I note that although names tend to be less distinctive than invented/foreign language words with no particular meaning, in this case the name GUCCI will be very uncommon for the UK average consumer and will, in my view, be distinctive to between a medium and high degree.

95. The opponent has also filed evidence to demonstrate that the mark has acquired enhanced distinctive character through use. The relevant market for assessing this is the UK market. The opponent has been trading under the earlier mark in the UK since 1961. To my mind, this is clearly long-standing use as this would have amounted to almost 60 years use at the relevant date. The opponent has concessions or stores located around the UK in locations such as Bicester, London, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Manchester. Clearly, therefore, use has been geographically widespread. Sales figures have been provided for the goods in question for the period 2014 to 2019. Although the figures relate to broader goods than those covered by the specification it is reasonable to assume that a significant proportion of these figures relate to the goods relied upon, particularly given the rest of the opponent’s evidence relating to the scale of use shown in relation to these goods. Such sales would amount to several hundred million euros. Although I have no evidence as to the extent of the market for the UK, this is likely to represent a significant market share. The opponent’s evidence confirms that the opponent spent between €1million and €10million on advertising in the UK between 2014 and 2019. This is supported by a number of examples of advertising in national publications and collaborations with celebrities. I note that the opponent’s website has several million viewers from the UK each year (between 2015 and 2019) and that the opponent had won a number of awards in the UK prior to the relevant date (such as best International Luxury Brand and Brand of the Year). Taking all of this into account, I am satisfied that the opponent has demonstrated that the distinctiveness of its mark has been enhanced to a very high degree through use.

Likelihood of confusion

96. Confusion can be direct or indirect. Direct confusion involves the average consumer mistaking one mark for the other, while indirect confusion is where the average consumer realises the marks are not the same but puts the similarity that exists between the marks and the goods down to the responsible undertakings being the same or related. There is no scientific formula to apply in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion; rather, it is a global assessment where a number of factors need to be borne in mind. The first is the interdependency principle i.e. a lesser degree of similarity between the respective trade marks may be offset by a greater

42 degree of similarity between the respective goods and services and vice versa. As I mentioned above, it is necessary for me to keep in mind the distinctive character of the earlier marks, the average consumer for the goods and the nature of the purchasing process. In doing so, I must be alive to the fact that the average consumer rarely has the opportunity to make direct comparisons between trade marks and must instead rely upon the imperfect picture of them that he has retained in his mind.

97. I have found the earlier marks to be visually highly similar and aurally similar to a medium degree or identical (depending upon how they are pronounced). I have found the word GUCCI/gucci in the marks to be conceptually neutral or identical depending upon whether any meaning is attributed to it. However, the “.llc” element of the applicant’s mark will act as a point of conceptual difference. I have found the earlier mark to be inherently distinctive to either a high degree or between a medium and high degree, depending upon how it is perceived. However, in either case, its distinctiveness has been enhanced to a very high degree through use. I have found the average consumer to be a member of the general public who will pay a medium degree of attention during the purchasing process. I have found the purchasing process to be predominantly visual, although I do not discount an aural component. I have found the goods to vary from being identical to similar to a medium degree.

98. At the hearing, Dr Mulholland pointed to the fact that there is no evidence of confusion. In Roger Maier and Another v ASOS, [2015] EWCA Civ 220, Kitchen L.J. stated that:

“80...... the likelihood of confusion must be assessed globally taking into account all relevant factors and having regard to the matters set out in Specsavers at paragraph [52] and repeated above. If the mark and the sign have both been used and there has been actual confusion between them, this may be powerful evidence that their similarity is such that there exists a likelihood of confusion. But conversely, the absence of actual confusion despite side by side use may be powerful evidence that they are not sufficiently similar to give rise to a likelihood of confusion. This may not always be so, however. The reason for the absence of confusion may be that the mark has only been used to a limited extent or in relation to only some of

the goods or services for which it is registered, or in such a way that there has been no possibility of the one being taken for the other. So there may, in truth, have been limited opportunity for real confusion to occur.”

99. There may be any number of reasons why there have been no examples of confusion in practice. For example, customers who have been confused may never realise that they have been confused and, consequently, will not report it to the undertaking concerned. Further, there is no evidence before me that the applicant traded any earlier than May 2019. Given the short period of time between May 2019 and the relevant date, it is perhaps not surprising that there would not be many (or any) reported instances of confusion. Consequently, I do not consider the lack of evidence of confusion to be detrimental to the opponent’s case.

100. Given that the element “.llc” may be attributed very little trade mark significance (being perceived as either a company indication or domain name), its presence in the applicant’s mark may be forgotten by the average consumer. Taking into account the principle of imperfect recollection, I consider it likely that the marks will be mistakenly recalled or misremembered as each other. When used on goods that are similar to at least a medium degree, I consider there to be a likelihood of direct confusion.

101. Even if I am wrong in that finding, I consider that the average consumer will conclude that the marks originate from the same or economically linked undertakings. The “.llc” element will be seen as indicating a particular trading body owned by the opponent or a domain name through which it operates online. The highly distinctive common element, combined with the similarity of the goods upon which they are used, will lead the average consumer to conclude that they originate from the same or economically linked undertakings. I consider there to be a likelihood of indirect confusion.

102. The opposition based upon section 5(2)(b) succeeds in its entirety.

103. In reaching this conclusion, I have borne in mind Dr Mulholland’s submission at the hearing regarding the fact that the average consumer is used to distinguishing between different types of domain names (such as .com and .llc). It may very well be

44 the case that upon seeing ‘gucci.com’ and ‘gucci.llc’ the average consumer will note that the domain names are different. However, that does not mean that the average consumer will believe the parties responsible for those different domain names to be entirely separate. Consequently, I do not consider that this line of argument assists the applicant.

104. I have also borne in mind the applicant’s comments regarding a disclaimer used on its website as set out in its counterstatement:

“We have a disclaimer on our website gucci.llc announcing our unique British brand, and that we are not affiliated with any company.”

105. For the avoidance of doubt, this does not assist the applicant for the following reasons. Firstly, it is the marks as registered/applied-for that are relevant to my assessment for the purposes of section 5(2)(b). The way in which the marks are used in practice does not factor into that assessment. Secondly, this presupposes that the average consumer has identified that the website is not one that belongs to the opponent. If the average consumer believes the applicant’s website to be one of the opponent’s then this disclaimer would not assist in distinguishing it from the opponent’s business. For these reasons, this line of argument does not assist the applicant.

Section 5(3)

106. Section 5(3) of the Act states:

“5(3) A trade mark which -

(a) is identical with or similar to an earlier trade mark, shall not be registered if, or to the extent that, the earlier trade mark has a reputation in the United Kingdom (or, in the case of a European Union trade mark or international trade mark (EC), in the European Union) and the use of the later mark without due cause would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the earlier trade mark.”

107. As noted above, the mark relied upon qualifies as an earlier mark pursuant to section 6 of the Act. I have found that the opponent has satisfied the proof of use requirements and that a fair specification is “Leather belts; handbags; purses; travelling bags; backpacks; briefcases; pocket wallets” in class 18 and “Clothing, footwear, headgear” in class 25. Consequently, the earlier mark can be relied upon in relation to these goods for the purposes of the opponent’s opposition under section 5(3) of the Act.

108. I bear in mind the relevant case law set out in the following judgments of the CJEU: Case C-375/97, General Motors, Case 252/07, Intel, Case C-408/01, Adidas- Salomon, Case C-487/07, L’Oreal v Bellure and Case C-323/09, Marks and Spencer v Interflora. The conditions of section 5(3) are cumulative. Firstly, the opponent must show that the earlier mark has achieved a level of knowledge/reputation amongst a significant part of the public. Secondly, it must be established that the level of reputation and the similarities between the marks will cause the public to make a link between them, in the sense of the earlier mark being brought to mind by the later mark. Thirdly, assuming the first and second conditions have been met, section 5(3) requires that one or more of the types of damage will occur. It is unnecessary for the purposes of section 5(3) that the goods be similar, although the relative distance between them is one of the factors which must be assessed in deciding whether the public will make a link between the marks.

109. The relevant date for the assessment under section 5(3) is the date of the application i.e. 13 June 2019.

Reputation

110. In General Motors, Case C-375/97, the CJEU held that:

“25. It cannot be inferred from either the letter or the spirit of Article 5(2) of the Directive that the trade mark must be known by a given percentage of the public so defined.

26. The degree of knowledge required must be considered to be reached when the earlier mark is known by a significant part of the public concerned by the products or services covered by that trade mark.

27. In examining whether this condition is fulfilled, the national court must take into consideration all the relevant facts of the case, in particular the market share held by the trade mark, the intensity, geographical extent and duration of its use, and the size of the investment made by the undertaking in promoting it.

28. Territorially, the condition is fulfilled when, in the terms of Article 5(2) of the Directive, the trade mark has a reputation 'in the Member State‘. In the absence of any definition of the Community provision in this respect, a trade mark cannot be required to have a reputation 'throughout‘ the territory of the Member State. It is sufficient for it to exist in a substantial part of it.”

111. In determining whether the opponent has demonstrated a reputation for the goods in issue, it is necessary for me to consider whether its mark will be known by a significant part of the public concerned with the goods. In reaching this decision, I must take all of the evidence into account including “the market share held by the trademark, the intensity, geographical extent and duration of use, and the size of the investment made by the undertakings in promoting it.” As the earlier mark is an EUTM, the opponent must establish a reputation in the EU.

112. As noted above, the extent of use in the UK (which at the relevant date was a member state of the EU) is significant. The sales figures are extensive, there has been significant advertising (including in national publications) and a number of awards have been won by the opponent such as best International Luxury Brand and Brand of the Year. In addition to this, the opponent has stores located across Italy. The opponent’s evidence is that by the end of 2019, the opponent had 106 directly owned and operated stores in Western Europe. Although not all of these will be located in the EU, and some may have been opened after the relevant date, it is reasonable to assume that a significant proportion of these will be located in the EU; Mr Volpi confirms that the opponent has 32 standalone stores, franchise stores or concessions located in Italy alone. The opponent’s website has several million visitors from Italy, in addition to

those noted above from the UK. Mr Volpi confirms that tens of millions of Euros have been spent on marketing in the EU between 2014 and 2019. In addition to the awards won in the UK, Mr Volpi notes that the opponent has been described as “the number one Italian brand” by Interbrand between 2000 and 2014 and “the number one Italian luxury brand” by Brand Finance in 2018. The opponent’s runway collections have been described as “most viewed” on three separate occasions. Taking all of this into account, I am satisfied that the opponent had a strong reputation for all of the goods relied upon in the EU at the relevant date.

Link

113. As I noted above, my assessment of whether the public will make the required mental ‘link’ between the marks must take account of all relevant factors. The factors identified in Intel are:

The degree of similarity between the conflicting marks

For the reasons set out above, I consider the marks to be visually highly similar and aurally identical or similar to a medium degree (depending upon how it is articulated). I have found the words GUCCI/gucci to be conceptually identical or neutral depending on the meaning attributed to them, although the “.llc” element of the applicant’s mark will be a point of conceptual difference.

The nature of the goods or services for which the conflicting marks are registered, or proposed to be registered, including the degree of closeness or dissimilarity between those goods or services, and the relevant section of the public

The goods for which the opponent has a reputation are all fashion items. I have found them to vary from being identical to similar to a medium degree to the applicant’s goods.

The strength of the earlier mark’s reputation

The earlier mark has a strong reputation in the EU for the goods relied upon.

The degree of the earlier mark’s distinctive character, whether inherent or acquired through use

The earlier mark is inherently distinctive to either a high degree or between a medium and high degree, depending upon how it is perceived. This has been enhanced to a very high degree through use.

Whether there is a likelihood of confusion

I have found there to be a likelihood of both direct and indirect confusion.

114. In my view, taking into account the strength of the opponent’s reputation and the distinctiveness of the common element, which is replicated exactly in the applicant’s mark, I consider that a significant part of the relevant public will make a link between the marks in use in relation to all of the goods in the applicant’s specification.

Damage

115. I must now assess whether any of the three pleaded types of damage will arise. In its Form TM7, the opponent states:

“Even if there is no likelihood of confusion (which is not accepted), because of the reputation of the earlier trade marks, the similarities between the marks, and the nature of the goods (being fashion consumer goods), it is highly likely that the average consumer would make a ‘link’ between the mark applied for and the earlier trade mark. This link would be made in relation to any fair and notional use that the Applicant would be entitled to make of his mark and is likely to cause the average consumer to bestow, on goods bearing or sold under the mark applied for, the qualities associated with the goods and services provided under the earlier trade mark. As a result, the Applicant’s goods would enjoy a marketing boost for which the Applicant has not paid. Such use, without

due cause, would therefore ride on the coat-tails of the Opponent and take unfair advantage of the reputation of the Opponent’s earlier trade mark.”

116. I bear in mind that unfair advantage has no effect on the consumers of the earlier marks’ goods. Instead, the taking of unfair advantage of the distinctive character or reputation of an earlier mark means that consumers are more likely to buy the goods and services of the later mark than they would otherwise have been if they had not been reminded of the earlier mark.

117. In Jack Wills Limited v House of Fraser (Stores) Limited [2014] EWHC 110 (Ch) Arnold J. considered the earlier case law and concluded that:

“80. The arguments in the present case give rise to two questions with regard to taking unfair advantage. The first concerns the relevance of the defendant's intention. It is clear both from the wording of Article 5(2) of the Directive and Article 9(1)(c) of the Regulation and from the case law of the Court of Justice interpreting these provisions that this aspect of the legislation is directed at a particular form of unfair competition. It is also clear from the case law both of the Court of Justice and of the Court of Appeal that the defendant's conduct is most likely to be regarded as unfair where he intends to benefit from the reputation and goodwill of the trade mark. In my judgment, however, there is nothing in the case law to preclude the court from concluding in an appropriate case that the use of a sign the objective effect of which is to enable the defendant to benefit from the reputation and goodwill of the trade mark amounts to unfair advantage even if it is not proved that the defendant subjectively intended to exploit that reputation and goodwill.”

118. As noted above, there is evidence that the opponent has a reputation for luxury goods. Given the strength of the opponent’s reputation, the common use of the highly distinctive element GUCCI/gucci and the similarity between the goods, it is clear that there is potential for the applicant to gain an unfair advantage. The applicant would secure a commercial advantage, benefitting from the opponent’s reputation without paying financial compensation and would, therefore, be likely to take unfair advantage of the earlier mark.

119. As damage is made out on the basis of unfair advantage, I do not consider it necessary to go on to consider the other heads of damage.

120. The opposition based upon section 5(3) succeeds in its entirety.

Section 5(4)(a)

121. Section 5(4)(a) of the Act states as follows:

“5(4) A trade mark shall not be registered if, or to the extent that, its use in the United Kingdom is liable to be prevented -

a) by virtue of any rule of law (in particular, the law of passing off) protecting an unregistered trade mark or other sign used in the course of trade, where the condition in subsection (4A) is met,

aa)…

b) …

A person thus entitled to prevent the use of a trade mark is referred to in this Act as the proprietor of “an earlier right” in relation to the trade mark”.

122. Subsection (4A) of section 5 of the Act states:

“(4A) The condition mentioned in subsection (4)(a) is that the rights to the unregistered trade mark or other sign were acquired prior to the date of application for registration of the trade mark or date of the priority claimed for that application.”

123. In Discount Outlet v Feel Good UK, [2017] EWHC 1400 IPEC, Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke, sitting as a deputy Judge of the High Court, conveniently summarised the essential requirements of the law of passing off as follows:

“55. The elements necessary to reach a finding of passing off are the ‘classical trinity' of that tort as described by Lord Oliver in the Jif Lemon case (Reckitt & Colman Product v Borden [1990] 1 WLR 491 HL, [1990] RPC 341, HL), namely goodwill or reputation; misrepresentation leading to deception or a likelihood of deception; and damage resulting from the misrepresentation. The burden is on the Claimants to satisfy me of all three limbs.

56. In relation to deception, the court must assess whether "a substantial number" of the Claimants' customers or potential customers are deceived, but it is not necessary to show that all or even most of them are deceived (per Interflora Inc v Marks and Spencer Plc [2012] EWCA Civ 1501, [2013] FSR 21).”

Relevant date

124. Whether there has been passing off must be judged at a particular point (or points) in time. In Advanced Perimeter Systems Limited v Multisys Computers Limited, BL O-410-11, Mr Daniel Alexander QC, sitting as the Appointed Person, considered the relevant date for the purposes of s.5(4)(a) of the Act and stated as follows:

“43. In SWORDERS TM O-212-06 Mr Alan James acting for the Registrar well summarised the position in s.5(4)(a) proceedings as follows:

‘Strictly, the relevant date for assessing whether s.5(4)(a) applies is always the date of the application for registration or, if there is a priority date, that date: see Article 4 of Directive 89/104. However, where the applicant has used the mark before the date of the application it is necessary to consider what the position would have been at the date of the start of the behaviour complained about, and then to assess whether the position would have been any different at the later date when the application was made.’”

125. The prima facie relevant date is the date of the application in issue i.e. 13 June 2019. The applicant states in its counterstatement that “our website gucci.llc carries a disclaimer”. This suggests that by the time of its counterstatement, the applicant was already operating a website in some form. This is confirmed by Ms Gibbs’ evidence, which includes a cease and desist letter regarding the applicant’s use of the contested mark as a domain name. I have no evidence before me as to when that use started. However, as the applicant had clearly commenced the behaviour complained about by May 2019, I will assess the position at that relevant date also.

Goodwill

126. The House of Lords in Inland Revenue Commissioners v Muller & Co’s Margarine Ltd [1901] AC 217 (HOL) provided the following guidance regarding goodwill:

“What is goodwill? It is a thing very easy to describe, very difficult to define. It is the benefit and advantage of the good name, reputation and connection of a business. It is the attractive force which brings in customers. It is the one thing which distinguishes an old-established business from a new business at its first start.”

127. In South Cone Incorporated v Jack Bessant, Dominic Greensmith, Kenwyn House and Gary Stringer (a partnership) [2002] RPC 19 (HC), Pumfrey J. stated:

“27. There is one major problem in assessing a passing off claim on paper, as will normally happen in the Registry. This is the cogency of the evidence of reputation and its extent. It seems to me that in any case in which this ground of opposition is raised the registrar is entitled to be presented with evidence which at least raises a prima facie case that the opponent's reputation extends to the goods comprised in the applicant's specification of goods. The requirements of the objection itself are considerably more stringent that the enquiry under s.11 of the 1938 Act (see Smith Hayden & Co. Ltd's Application (OVAX) (1946) 63 R.P.C. 97 as qualified by BALI Trade Mark [1969] R.P.C. 472). Thus the evidence will include evidence from the trade as to reputation;

evidence as to the manner in which the goods are traded or the services supplied; and so on.

28. Evidence of reputation comes primarily from the trade and the public, and will be supported by evidence of the extent of use. To be useful, the evidence must be directed to the relevant date. Once raised, the applicant must rebut the prima facie case. Obviously, he does not need to show that passing off will not occur, but he must produce sufficient cogent evidence to satisfy the hearing officer that it is not shown on the balance of probabilities that passing off will occur.”

128. However, in Minimax GmbH & Co KG v Chubb Fire Limited [2008] EWHC 1960 (Pat) Floyd J. (as he then was) stated that:

“[The above] observations are obviously intended as helpful guidelines as to the way in which a person relying on section 5(4)(a) can raise a case to be answered of passing off. I do not understand Pumfrey J to be laying down any absolute requirements as to the nature of evidence which needs to be filed in every case. The essential is that the evidence should show, at least prima facie, that the opponent's reputation extends to the goods comprised in the application in the applicant's specification of goods. It must also do so as of the relevant date, which is, at least in the first instance, the date of application.”

129. Goodwill arises as a result of trading activities. Clearly, the opponent had been trading in the UK prior to the relevant dates. This is clear from the sales figures provided, the stores operating by the relevant dates, the evidence of advertisements dated prior to the relevant dates and the awards won. Taking all of the evidence into account, I am satisfied that the opponent had a strong degree of goodwill in relation to the goods relied upon at the relevant dates. Mr Volpi gives evidence of the earlier mark being used on the opponent’s products through stamping, labelling and product packaging. Examples have been provided of the mark appearing on physical premises, as well as in advertisements. In light of this, I am also satisfied that the earlier mark was distinctive of the opponent’s goodwill at the relevant dates.

Misrepresentation and damage

130. In Neutrogena Corporation and Another v Golden Limited and Another [1996] RPC 473, Morritt L.J. stated that:

“There is no dispute as to what the correct legal principle is. As stated by Lord Oliver of Aylmerton in Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd. v. Borden Inc. [1990] R.P.C. 341 at page 407 the question on the issue of deception or confusion is

“is it, on a balance of probabilities, likely that, if the appellants are not restrained as they have been, a substantial number of members of the public will be misled into purchasing the defendants' [product] in the belief that it is the respondents' [product]”

The same proposition is stated in Halsbury's Laws of England 4th Edition Vol.48 para 148. The necessity for a substantial number is brought out also in Saville Perfumery Ltd. v. June Perfect Ltd. (1941) 58 R.P.C. 147 at page 175; and Re Smith Hayden's Application (1945) 63 R.P.C. 97 at page 101.”

And later in the same judgment:

“.... for my part, I think that references, in this context, to “more than de minimis” and “above a trivial level” are best avoided notwithstanding this court's reference to the former in University of London v. American University of London (unreported 12 November 1993). It seems to me that such expressions are open to misinterpretation for they do not necessarily connote the opposite of substantial and their use may be thought to reverse the proper emphasis and concentrate on the quantitative to the exclusion of the qualitative aspect of confusion.”

131. I recognise that the test for misrepresentation is different from that for likelihood of confusion in that it entails “deception of a substantial number of members of the public” rather than “confusion of the average consumer”. However, as recognised by Lewison L.J. in Marks and Spencer PLC v Interflora, [2012] EWCA (Civ) 1501, it is

doubtful whether the difference between the legal tests will produce different outcomes. Certainly, I believe that to be the case here. I consider that a substantial number of members of the relevant public would be misled into purchasing the applicant’s goods in the mistaken belief that they are the goods of the opponent. Damage through diversion of sales is easily foreseeable.

132. The opposition based upon section 5(4)(a) succeeds in its entirety.

Section 3(6)

133. As I have already found in favour of the opponent under sections 5(2)(b), 5(3) and 5(4)(a), I do not consider it necessary to go on to assess the section 3(6) ground.

CONCLUSION

134. The opposition is successful and the application is refused.

COSTS

135. The opponent has been successful and is entitled to a contribution towards its costs based upon the scale published in Tribunal Practice Notice 2/2016 (“the TPN”). At the hearing, Dr Mulholland indicated that he was not familiar with the TPN. As the applicant had not, at that stage, been invited to file a costs proforma in the usual way, I directed that the applicant be given a period of 14 days in which to file its costs proforma and make any written submissions regarding the opponent’s claim for costs under the TPN, if it wished to do so. The applicant has done neither. In the circumstances, I award the opponent the sum of £2,450 as a contribution towards the costs of the proceedings. This sum is calculated as follows:

Filing a Notice of opposition and considering £400 the applicant’s counterstatement

Filing evidence and considering the applicant’s £1,000 evidence

Preparing for and attending hearing £850

Official fee £200

Total £2,450

136. I therefore order BERNARD MULHOLLAND LTD to pay Guccio Gucci S.p.A. the sum of £2,450. This sum should be paid within 21 days of the expiry of the appeal period or, if there is an appeal, within 21 days of the conclusion of the appeal proceedings.

Dated this 16th day of April 2021

S WILSON For the Registrar

ANNEX

Class 18 Airline travel bags; All purpose sport bags; All-purpose athletic bags; All-purpose carrying bags; All-purpose sports bags; Articles of luggage; Athletic bags; Athletics bags; Attaché bags; Attache cases; Attaché cases; Attache cases made of imitation leather; Attache cases made of leather; Back packs; Backpacks; Backpacks [rucksacks]; Baggage; Baggage tags; Bags; Bags for climbers; Bags for sports; Bags for travel; Bags (Garment -) for travel; Bags made of imitation leather; Bags made of leather; Beauty cases; Briefcases; Briefcases and attache cases; Briefcases for documents; Briefcases [leather goods]; Briefcases [leatherware]; Briefcases made of leather; Bucket bags; Bum bags; Bumbags; Cabin bags; Canvas bags; Canvas shopping bags; Card holders made of leather; Card wallets; Card wallets [leatherware]; Carriers for suits, for shirts and for dresses; Carriers for suits, shirts and dresses; Carry-all bags; Carrying bags; Carry-on bags; Carry-on suitcases; Casual bags; Change purses; Clutch bags; Clutch handbags; Clutch purses; Clutch purses [handbags]; Clutches [purses]; Coin purses; Cosmetic bags; Cosmetic bags sold empty; Cosmetic cases sold empty; Cosmetic purses; Courier bags; Credit card cases [wallets]; Credit card holders; Credit card holders made of imitation leather; Credit card holders made of leather; Credit-card holders; Crossbody bags; Cross-body bags; Daypacks; Diplomatic bags; Evening bags; Evening handbags; Evening purses; Fashion handbags; Flexible bags for garments; Flight bags; Garment bags; Garment bags for travel; Garment bags for travel made of leather; Garment carriers; Gentlemen's handbags; Gent's handbags; Gladstone bags; Hand bags; Handbags; Handbags for ladies; Handbags made of imitations leather; Handbags made of leather; Handbags, purses and wallets; Hiking bags; Hiking rucksacks; Kit bags; Knapsacks; Leather bags; Leather bags and wallets; Leather briefcases; Leather credit card cases; Leather credit card holder; Leather credit card wallets; Leather handbags; Leather shopping bags; Leather suitcases; Leather wallets; Luggage; Luggage bags; Luggage, bags, wallets and other carriers; Luggage labels; Luggage tags; Makeup bags; Make-up bags; Make-up bags sold empty; Make-up boxes; Make-up cases; Messenger bags; Motorized suitcases; Multi-purpose purses; Overnight bags; Overnight cases; Overnight suitcases; Pochettes; Pocket wallets; Pouchettes; Purses; Purses [leatherware]; Purses made of precious metal; Purses, not made of precious

metal; Purses not made of precious metal; Purses, not made of precious metal [handbags]; Purses [not of precious metal]; Purses, not of precious metal; Purses, not of precious metal [handbags];Purses of precious metal; Roller suitcases; Ruck sacks; Rucksacks; Rucksacks for mountaineers; Rucksacks on castors; Saddlebags; Satchels; School backpacks; Shoe bags; Shoe bags for travel; Shopping bags; Shopping bags made of skin; Shopping bags with wheels attached; Shoulder bags; Slouch handbags; Small backpacks; Small bags for men; Small clutch purses; Small purses; Small rucksacks; Small suitcases; Souvenir bags; Sport bags; Sports bags; Sports [Bags for -];Sports packs; Suit bags; Suit carriers; Suitcases; Suitcases, motorized, rideable; Suitcases with wheels; Tags for luggage; Tote bags; Travel baggage; Travel bags; Travel cases; Travel garment covers; Travel luggage; Traveling bags; Traveling sets; Traveling sets [leatherware]; Traveling trunks; Travelling bags; Travelling bags [leatherware]; Travelling bags made of imitation leather; Travelling bags made of leather; Travelling cases; Travelling cases of leather; Travelling sets; Travelling sets [leatherware];Travelling trunks; Trunks and suitcases; Trunks and traveling bags; Trunks and travelling bags; Trunks being luggage; Trunks [luggage]; Two-wheeled shopping bags; Valises; Waist bags; Waist packs; Waist pouches; Wallets; Wallets for attachment to belts; Wallets including card holders; Wallets incorporating card holders; Wallets, not of precious metal; Wallets [not of precious metal]; Wallets of precious metal; Wallets (Pocket -);Wallets with card compartments; Weekend bags; Wheeled bags; Wheeled luggage; Wheeled shopping bags; Wheeled suitcases; Wrist mounted purses; Wrist-mounted wallets.

Class 25 After ski boots; Aloha shirts; American football pants; American football shirts; American football shorts; American football socks; Anglers' shoes; Ankle boots; Ankle socks; Anklets [socks]; Anoraks; Anoraks [parkas];Anti-perspirant socks; Anti-sweat underclothing; Anti-sweat underwear; Après-ski boots; Apres-ski shoes; Aprons; Aprons [clothing]; Aqua shoes; Arm warmers [clothing]; Army boots; Articles of clothing; Articles of clothing for theatrical use; Articles of clothing made of hides; Articles of clothing made of leather; Articles of outer clothing; Articles of sports clothing; Articles of underclothing; Ascots; Ascots (ties); Athletic clothing; Athletic footwear; Athletic shoes; Athletic tights; Athletic uniforms; Athletics footwear; Athletics hose; Athletics shoes; Athletics vests; Babies' clothing; Babies' outerclothing; Babies'

pants [clothing]; Babies' pants [underwear]; Babies' undergarments; Babushkas; Baby bibs [not of paper]; Baby bodysuits; Baby boots; Baby bottoms; Baby clothes; Baby doll pyjamas; Baby layettes for clothing; Baby pants; Baby sandals; Baby tops; Balaclavas; Ball gowns; Ballet shoes; Ballet slippers; Ballet suits; Ballroom dancing shoes; Bandanas; Bandanas [neckerchiefs]; Bandannas; Bandeaux [clothing];Barber smocks; Baseball caps; Baseball caps and hats; Baseball hats; Baseball shoes; Baseball uniforms; Baselayer bottoms; Baselayer tops; Basic upper garment of Korean traditional clothes [Jeogori]; Basketball shoes; Basketball sneakers; Bath robes; Bath sandals; Bath slippers; Bathing caps; Bathing costumes; Bathing costumes for women; Bathing drawers; Bathing suit cover-ups; Bathing suits; Bathing suits for men; Bathing trunks; Bathrobes; Beach clothes; Beach clothing; Beach cover- ups; Beach footwear; Beach hats; Beach robes; After ski boots; Aloha shirts; Ankle boots; Ankle socks; Anklets [socks]; Anoraks; Anoraks [parkas];Après-ski boots; Apres-ski shoes; Army boots; Articles of clothing; Articles of clothing for theatrical use; Articles of clothing made of hides; Articles of clothing made of leather; Articles of outer clothing; Articles of sports clothing; Articles of underclothing; Ascots; Ascots (ties);Athletic clothing; Athletic footwear; Athletic shoes; Athletic tights; Athletic uniforms; Athletics footwear; Athletics hose; Athletics shoes; Athletics vests; After ski boots; Aloha shirts; Ankle boots; Ankle socks; Anklets [socks]; Anoraks; Anoraks [parkas];Après-ski boots; Apres-ski shoes; Army boots; Articles of clothing; Articles of clothing for theatrical use; Articles of clothing made of hides; Articles of clothing made of leather; Articles of outer clothing; Articles of sports clothing; Articles of underclothing; Ascots; Ascots (ties); Athletic clothing; Athletic footwear; Athletic shoes; Athletic tights; Athletic uniforms; Athletics footwear; Athletics hose; Athletics shoes; Athletics vests; Ballet shoes; Ballet slippers; Baseball caps; Baseball caps and hats; Baseball shoes; Basketball shoes; Basketball sneakers; Bathing costumes; Bathing costumes for women; Bathing suits for men; Bathing trunks; Beach clothes; Beach clothing; Beach footwear; Beach shoes; Belts [clothing]; Belts for clothing; Belts made from imitation leather; Belts made of leather; Belts made out of cloth; Belts (Money -) [clothing]; Belts of textile; Bermuda shorts; Bikinis; Blazers; Blouses; Blouson jackets; Blousons; Blue jeans; Board shorts; Boardshorts; Boas; Boas [clothing]; Boas [necklets]; Boaters; Bomber jackets; Boots; Boots for sport; Boots for sports; Boots (Ski -); Boxer briefs; Boxer shorts; Bras; Brassieres; Breeches; Breeches for wear; Briefs; Briefs [underwear]; Button down shirts; Button-front aloha shirts; Camouflage

jackets; Camouflage pants; Camouflage shirts; Camouflage vests; Canvas shoes; Capes (clothing); Caps being headwear; Caps [headwear]; Car coats; Cardigans; Cargo pants; Cashmere clothing; Cashmere scarves; Casual clothing; Casual footwear; Casual jackets; Casual shirts; Casual trousers; Casual wear; Casualwear; Chaps (clothing); Chemise tops; Chemises; Chemisettes; Clothes; Clothes for sport; Clothes for sports; Clothing; Clothing for leisure wear; Clothing for men, women and children; Clothing for skiing; Clothing for sports; Clothing made of fur; Clothing made of imitation leather; Clothing made of leather; Clothing of imitations of leather; Clothing of leather; Coats; Coats for men; Coats for women; Coats made of cotton; Coats of denim; Coats (Top -); Cocktail dresses; Combinations [clothing]; Corduroy pants; Corduroy shirts; Corduroy trousers; Cravates; Cravats; Crew neck sweaters; Culottes; Deck shoes; Deck-shoes; Denim coats; Denim jackets; Denim jeans; Denim pants; Denims [clothing]; Desert boots; Down jackets; Down vests; Dresses for evening wear; Driving shoes; Duffel coats; Duffle coats; Embroidered clothing; Espadrilles; Esparto shoes or sandals; Esparto shoes or sandles; Evening dresses; Evening suits; Evening wear; Exercise wear; Fingerless gloves as clothing; Flat caps; Flat shoes; Fleece jackets; Fleece pullovers; Fleece shorts; Fleece tops; Fleece vests; Fleeces; Flip- flops; Flip-flops for use as footwear; Football boots; Football shoes; Footwear; Footwear [excluding orthopedic footwear];Footwear for men; Footwear for men and women; Footwear for sport; Footwear for sports; Footwear for use in sport; Footwear for women; Footwear not for sports; Gloves; Gloves as clothing; Gloves [clothing];Gloves for apparel; G-strings; Gymwear; Hats; Head scarves; Head wear; Headbands [clothing]; Headgear; Headgear for wear; Heels; High-heeled shoes; Hooded pullovers; Hooded sweat shirts; Hooded sweatshirts; Hooded tops; Hoodies; Hosiery; Imitation leather dresses; Jacket liners; Jackets; Jackets [clothing]; Jeans; Jerseys [clothing]; Jockstraps [underwear]; Jogging bottoms [clothing];Jogging sets [clothing]; Jumpers; Jumpers [pullovers]; Jumpers [sweaters];Kerchiefs [clothing];Knitted clothing; Knitted gloves; Knitwear [clothing]; Ladies' boots; Ladies' clothing; Ladies' dresses; Ladies' footwear; Ladies' outerclothing; Ladies' sandals; Ladies' suits; Ladies' underwear; Ladies wear; Layettes [clothing]; Leather belts [clothing];Leather clothing; Leggings [trousers];Leisure clothing; Leisure footwear; Leisure shoes; Leisure suits; Leisure wear; Leisurewear; Linen clothing; Lingerie; Long jackets; Long sleeve pullovers; Long sleeved vests; Long-sleeved shirts; Lounge pants; Loungewear; Lumberjackets; Mackintoshes; Men's and women's jackets,

coats, trousers, vests; Men's clothing; Men's sandals; Men's socks; Men's suits; Men's underwear; Menswear; Miniskirts; Moccasins; Mock turtleneck shirts; Mock turtleneck sweaters; Money belts [clothing]; Mufflers [clothing]; Muffs [clothing]; Neck scarves; Outer clothing; Outerclothing; Outerclothing for men; Outerwear; Padded jackets; Panties; Platform shoes; Plimsolls; Pocket kerchiefs; Pocket squares; Pocket squares [clothing]; Polar fleece jackets; Polo boots; Polo neck jumpers; Polo shirts; Polo sweaters; Pullovers; Pumps [footwear];Quilted jackets [clothing]; Rain coats; Ready- to-wear clothing; Running shoes; Sandals; Sandals and beach shoes; Scarfs; Scarves; Shirts; Shoes; Shoes for casual wear; Shoes for foot volleyball; Shoes for leisurewear; Short trousers; Shorts; Shorts [clothing]; Short-sleeve shirts; Short- sleeved shirts; Short-sleeved T-shirts; Shoulder scarves; Shoulder wraps [clothing]; Ski boots; Ski jackets; Ski pants; Skirt suits; Skirts; Skorts; Sleeved jackets; Sleeveless jackets; Sleeveless jerseys; Sleeveless pullovers; Slip-on shoes; Sneakers; Sneakers [footwear]; Soccer boots; Soccer shirts; Soccer shoes; Socks; Socks and stockings; Socks for men; Soles for footwear; Sport coats; Sport shirts; Sport shoes; Sport stockings; Sports [Boots for -]; Sports bras; Sports clothing; Sports clothing [other than golf gloves];Sports footwear; Sports garments; Sports headgear [other than helmets];Sports jackets; Sports jerseys; Sports jerseys and breeches for sports; Sports pants; Sports shirts; Sports shirts with short sleeves; Sports shoes; Sports singlets; Sports socks; Sports vests;Sports wear; Sportswear; Stocking suspenders; Stockings; Strapless bras; Strapless brassieres; Stuff jackets [clothing]; Suede jackets; Suit coats; Suits; Sundresses; Sunsuits; Suspender belts; Suspenders; Sweaters; Sweatshirts; Sweatshorts; Sweatsuits; Swim briefs; Swim shorts; Swim trunks; Tank-tops; Tee-shirts; Thong sandals; Thongs; Ties [clothing]; Tights; Tops [clothing]; Track and field shoes; Track suits; Tracksuits; Trainers [footwear]; Training shoes; Trekking boots; Trench coats; Trenchcoats; Trousers; Trousers shorts; T- shirts; Turtleneck pullovers; Turtleneck sweaters; Turtleneck tops; Turtlenecks; Underclothes; Underclothing; Underclothing for women; Underwear for women; Vests; Waistcoats; Waistcoats [vests];Walking boots; Walking shoes; Waterproof clothing; Weatherproof clothing; Wedge sneakers; Wellington boots; Wellingtons; Wind coats; Wind jackets; Wind pants; Wind resistant jackets; Wind vests; Windcheaters; Windproof clothing; Winter boots; Winter coats; Winter gloves; Women's clothing; Womens' outerclothing; Women's shoes; Women's suits; Womens' underclothing; Womens' undergarments; Women's underwear; Wooden shoes; Wooden shoes

[footwear]; Woolen clothing; Work boots; Work clothes; Work shoes; Woven clothing; Woven shirts; Wraps [clothing];Yoga shoes.