Snoop Dogg successful in TM opposition at UKIPO
US rapper Snoop Dogg has successfully opposed a UK trademark for ‘Snoop’ based on the grounds of bad faith.
The UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) announced the judgment in favour of the rapper on Monday, July 16.
In October 2016, broadcasting company Snoop International applied to register the trademark ‘Snoop’ for precious metals and jewellery (class 14), and lace, embroidery and ribbons (class 26).
The application was examined and accepted in 2016.
The following year, Calvin Broadus (better known as Snoop Dogg) opposed the trademark based on a selection of earlier word marks including ‘Snoop Dogg’ (EU registration numbers 1,296,177 and 15,781,768); ‘Snoop Juice’ (11,536,075) and ‘Snoop Lion’ (11,121,589).
Snoop Dogg argued that his marks and the registration for ‘Snoop’ are similar both in terms of the wording and goods offered. He also claimed that he owns a family of well-known trademarks that are registered for goods including jewellery.
According to the rapper, his marks have been used in some instances since 1992. He said that as a result, consumers could assume there is a link between the earlier marks and ‘Snoop’.
Snoop Dogg also relied on a collection of earlier unregistered marks, protected under the law of passing off, including ‘Snoop’ and ‘Snoop Doggy Dog’.
In addition, he contended that the applicant has no intention of using the mark. Instead, Snoop Dogg alleged that Snoop International’s owner, Michael Gleissner, has numerous UK trademarks that are used only for “blocking purposes”. Snoop Dogg claimed that this constitutes bad faith.
Gleissner filed a counterstatement in September 2017 denying all the grounds and claiming the marks offer different goods.
Gleissner said that Snoop Dogg has relied on hearsay rather than concrete evidence, and that Gleissner has not had time to show the intent to use the trademark since its registration.
George Salthouse, acting on behalf of the IPO, said that Gleissner has actually had 17 months since the opposition was filed to provide evidence to counter the allegation.
“The applicant has not provided a clear statement that it intends to use the mark in suit, nor any explanation as to why it filed the suit,” he said.
Salthouse upheld the opposition on grounds of bad faith, and ordered Snoop International to pay Snoop Dogg £1,300 ($1,700).
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
Motorola secures victory over Hytera in Germany
Already registered?
Login to your account
If you don't have a login or your access has expired, you will need to purchase a subscription to gain access to this article, including all our online content.
For more information on individual annual subscriptions for full paid access and corporate subscription options please contact us.
To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk