CCHG Ltd (t/a Vaporized) v Vapouriz Ltd [2017] ScotCS CSOH_100 (12 July 2017)

CCHG Ltd (t/a Vaporized) v Vapouriz Ltd [2017] ScotCS CSOH_100 (12 July 2017)

The court held that the hearing officer did not err in principle in his assessment of the marks or the likelihood of confusion. The hearing officer applied the correct legal test, considered the marks as a whole, and was entitled to find a likelihood of confusion given the similarities in the word elements and overall impression, even if those elements were descriptive. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2017] ScotCS CSOH_100
Parties
Appellant and Registered Proprietor: CCHG Limited t/a Vaporized; Respondent and Applicant: Vapouriz Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 76 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 / Judgment on Appeal From Registrar's Hearing Officer
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Likelihood of Confusion, Distinctiveness of Trade Marks, Comparison of Device Marks, Descriptive Elements in Trade Marks, Appeal Standards in Trade Mark Cases
Intellectual Property Trade Marks Likelihood of Confusion Distinctiveness of Trade Marks Comparison of Device Marks Descriptive Elements in Trade Marks Appeal Standards in Trade Mark Cases

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CCHG Limited t/a Vaporized

Appellant and Registered Proprietor

Vapouriz Limited

Respondent and Applicant

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Section 76 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 / Judgment on Appeal From Registrar's Hearing Officer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the hearing officer erred in characterising the average consumer and the significance of aural perception
  2. 2 Whether the hearing officer erred by dissecting the device marks and failing to compare them as a whole
  3. 3 Whether the hearing officer erred in assessing the likelihood of confusion, particularly regarding the weight given to aural similarity and non-distinctive elements

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the hearing officer did not err in principle in his assessment of the marks or the likelihood of confusion. The hearing officer applied the correct legal test, considered the marks as a whole, and was entitled to find a likelihood of confusion given the similarities in the word elements and overall impression, even if those elements were descriptive. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The decision of the hearing officer declaring the appellant's trade mark invalid is upheld.