Coco De Mer Ltd v Chanel Ltd

Coco De Mer Ltd v Chanel Ltd

The appeal is dismissed because the Hearing Officer was entitled to conclude that the COCO element is a strong and distinctive feature in both marks, and when used on identical goods, creates a likelihood of confusion as to economic origin. The global assessment of visual, aural, and conceptual similarity supports the finding that consumers would wrongly believe the goods come from the same or economically linked undertakings.

Parties
Applicant/appellant: Coco de Mer Limited; Opponent/respondent: Chanel Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 76 Trade Marks Act 1994 / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Likelihood of Confusion, Trademark Registration, Distinctiveness of Marks, Global Assessment, Similarity of Marks
Intellectual Property Trademark Law Likelihood of Confusion Trademark Registration Distinctiveness of Marks Global Assessment Similarity of Marks

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Coco de Mer Limited

Applicant/appellant

Chanel Limited

Opponent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Section 76 Trade Marks Act 1994 / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the COCO DE MER mark is sufficiently similar to the COCO mark to create a likelihood of confusion under Section 5(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
  2. 2 Whether the distinctive character of the COCO element in the applied-for mark creates an association leading to confusion
  3. 3 Whether the marks should be considered as a whole or with emphasis on dominant elements

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the Hearing Officer was entitled to conclude that the COCO element is a strong and distinctive feature in both marks, and when used on identical goods, creates a likelihood of confusion as to economic origin. The global assessment of visual, aural, and conceptual similarity supports the finding that consumers would wrongly believe the goods come from the same or economically linked undertakings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The refusal to register the COCO DE MER mark is upheld.
  • Opposition by Chanel Limited succeeds under Section 5(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.