Devil is in the (angel) detail: Clarins TM opposition dismissed
The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) has dismissed a trademark opposition filed by French cosmetics brand Clarins Fragrance Group.
Gabriel Ong, assistant registrar of trademarks, delivered his finding in the Hearings and Mediation Department of the IPOS on February 1, following the hearing in November 2017.
BenQ Materials, a provider of consumer skin and healthcare products, started selling a new line of skincare products under the brand name “derma Angel”. BenQ applied to register the figurative mark in class 3, for cosmetics and skin products, in May 2015.
Clarins, which owns the earlier registered trademark ‘Angel’ (number T99,010,38E) in class 3 for perfumes and skin products, filed an opposition. The French company claimed its mark had acquired a high level of distinctiveness and is well known by the Singaporean public, who would be confused by the similar ‘derma Angel’ mark.
Although its perfume line is sold in Singapore, Clarins did not provide sales figures to demonstrate the prevalence of the brand, despite providing “more than 800 pages” of evidence, according to Ong.
In the evidence provided by Clarins, the mark ‘Angel’ always appeared with the ‘Thierry Mugler’ mark. Accordingly any actual and potential customers would believe the fragrance is from, or by, designer Thierry Mugler .
In relation to global advertising campaigns and signs related to the fragrance, the impact on the Singaporean public was therefore likely to be “limited”.
Ong added that “angel” is an ordinary English work , lacking “technical distinctiveness”. He said it is “arbitrary” and does not allude to the character of the goods: “what does an angel smell like? I have no idea”.
As such, ‘Angel’ had not acquired a great level of distinctiveness through its use.
Additionally the marks were held to be visually, aurally, and conceptually dissimilar; “the devil (or here: angel) is in the details”, according to Ong.
First, the word “derma” and the swirled effect on the first letter of “angel” renders the contested mark visually distinct from the earlier mark.
Second, the contested mark has an additional two syllables, rendering it aurally dissimilar.
Third, the word “Angel” relates to a heavenly or spiritual being, whereas the phrase “derma Angel” has no sensible meaning. They therefore lack conceptual similarity.
Ong declared that “the opposition fails on all grounds”.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox.
Today’s top stories
Report: US patent case filings slide again
Fieldfisher hires Dentons’ former UK head of IP
Foley & Lardner promotes five IP lawyers
