Soulcycle Inc v Matalan Ltd

Soulcycle Inc v Matalan Ltd

The Hearing Officer did not err in principle by considering two classes of average consumer or in his assessment of conceptual, visual, and aural similarity. The approach taken was justified by authority, and the conclusion that there was no likelihood of confusion was one he was entitled to reach.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: SoulCycle Inc; Respondent: Matalan Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trade Marks, Likelihood of Confusion, Distinctiveness, Composite Marks
Intellectual Property Trade Marks Likelihood of Confusion Distinctiveness Composite Marks

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SoulCycle Inc

Appellant

Matalan Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Hearing Officer erred in assessing likelihood of confusion under section 5(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
  2. 2 Whether the Hearing Officer correctly applied principles regarding the perception of the average consumer
  3. 3 Whether the Hearing Officer properly considered the role of the 'Soul' element in the composite mark

Ratio Decidendi

The Hearing Officer did not err in principle by considering two classes of average consumer or in his assessment of conceptual, visual, and aural similarity. The approach taken was justified by authority, and the conclusion that there was no likelihood of confusion was one he was entitled to reach.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed