Love does not cost a thing: Cartier’s failed opposition
Posted by TMR on January 10, 2019 / Posted in Trade Marks
The luxury jewellery house founded in 1847 is still a thriving brand that has become synonymous with celebrity lifestyle.
The luxury jewellery house founded in 1847 is still a thriving brand that has become synonymous with celebrity lifestyle. In filing an opposition in Singapore, the Hearing Officer assesses whether any an individual/ entity can monopolise the word ‘LOVE’ as a trade mark in relation to class 14 (jewellery).
The luxury designer jewellery house filed an opposition against the company MoneyMax jewellery’s application of their trade mark ‘LOVE GOLD’ in classes 14 and 35 respectively. Cartier wanted to protect its earlier ‘LOVE’ figurative trade mark which incorporates Cartier’s iconic slotted screw head in the place on an O. The first Cartier piece in the ‘LOVE’ range was designed in 1969 and the range has been in demand ever since.
When considering Cartier’s opposition, the Singaporean Hearing Officer (‘the Hearing Officer’) found that Cartier was not the only owner of a ‘LOVE’ trade mark. The Hearing Officer decided to assess which part of Cartier’s earlier ‘LOVE’ mark, would have been considered distinctive under the Singapore Trade Marks Act (‘STMA’). Section 7 of STMA states the following:
7. (1) The following shall not be registered:
|
(a) |
signs which do not satisfy the definition of a trade mark in section 2(1); |
|
(b) |
trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character; |
|
(c) |
trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, the time of production of goods or of rendering of services, or other characteristics of goods or services; and |
|
(d) |
trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which have become customary in the current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade. |
From the above, it is shown that the ‘LOVE’ part of Cartier’s mark would not have given the mark its distinctiveness (it was the incorporation of Cartier screw in its mark). Consequently, the Hearing Officer referred to the judgement with in Love & Co Pte Ltd v The Carat Club Pte Ltd [2009] 1 SLR(R) 561 (the case involved the invalidation of an owner’s ‘LOVE’ trade mark due to lack of distinctiveness). Since the word ‘LOVE’ was not a distinctive part of Cartier’s earlier mark, MoneyMax’s trade mark was considered dissimilar. Furthermore, the Hearing Officer reasoned that the word ‘LOVE’ could not be monopolised by an individual/ entity as a trade mark for jewellery. Arguably, in an industry that experiences high sales in seasons of gift-giving, monopolising the word ‘LOVE’ would give Cartier too much of a competitive advantage.
By Fatima Amedu
This entry was posted on January 10, 2019 and is filed under Trade Marks. You can follow our blog through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Comments