Korean company THEFACESHOP Co., LTD, Seoul, Korea, registered the mark TheFaceShop (see Fig.1) claiming protection for cosmetics, perfumes and related products and retail trade therewith in March 2014 in Switzerland.

Fig. 1
Fig. 1

As one can imagine, the British company THE BODY SHOP INTERNATIONAL PLC, Sussex, England, was not amused and opposed the registration based on its word mark THE BODY SHOP and its figurative mark The Body Shop (see Fig. 2), both claiming protection for identical or highly similar products as the younger mark.

Fig. 2
Fig. 2

The Swiss IPO dismissed the oppositions based on the reasoning that the elements THE and SHOP of the older mark were directly descriptive for the claimed goods and services. It had not been shown that these elements profited from acquired distinctiveness. The comparison of the (mildly) distinctive elements BODY and FACE did not lead to a legally relevant likelihood of confusion.

On appeal, the Federal Administrative Court came to a different conclusion and cancelled the registration of the younger mark. The Court reasoned that the common elements THE and SHOP were indeed descriptive and not distinctive. Nonetheless, when comparing two marks, they must be compared as a whole. Non-distinctive elements can support a finding of a likelihood of confusion if they are found in the same position in both marks.

In the case at hand, both marks were formed according to the same structure, i.e. THE [WORD] SHOP. The identical position of the non-distinctive elements, the similar meaning of BODY and FACE, the same number of characters in all elements, and the hardly distinctive figurative element of the younger mark (bold type for FACE) lead to an overall highly similar impression which leads the relevant consumers to believe that TheFaceShop (fig.) was a line of facial cosmetics of The Body Shop International Plc. Whether THE BODY SHOP had acquired a reputation in Switzerland through continuous use since 1983 could therefore be left undecided.

I think the Federal Administrative Court got it right. There is something smelly here, and I do not mean the perfumes of the parties.

Decision B-2711/2016 of 12 December 2016


To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Trademark Blog, please subscribe here.

Kluwer IP Law

The 2022 Future Ready Lawyer survey showed that 79% of lawyers think that the importance of legal technology will increase for next year. With Kluwer IP Law you can navigate the increasingly global practice of IP law with specialized, local and cross-border information and tools from every preferred location. Are you, as an IP professional, ready for the future?

Learn how Kluwer IP Law can support you.

Kluwer IP Law
This page as PDF

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *