{"id":2896,"date":"2018-11-23T09:39:43","date_gmt":"2018-11-23T09:39:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/aaalaw.lv\/insights\/the-body-shop-vs-thefaceshop-ruling-of-the-supreme-court-of-latvia-16-november-2018\/"},"modified":"2022-10-26T12:47:47","modified_gmt":"2022-10-26T12:47:47","slug":"the-body-shop-vs-thefaceshop-ruling-of-the-supreme-court-of-latvia-16-november-2018","status":"publish","type":"insights","link":"https:\/\/aaalaw.lv\/en\/insights\/the-body-shop-vs-thefaceshop-ruling-of-the-supreme-court-of-latvia-16-november-2018\/","title":{"rendered":"THE BODY SHOP vs. THEFACESHOP \u2013 Ruling of the Supreme Court of Latvia (16 November, 2018)"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"featured_media":1256,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"template":"","services":[20],"topics":[72],"class_list":["post-2896","insights","type-insights","status-publish","hentry","services-trademarks-design","topics-insights"],"acf":{"insights_1_short_description":"Our client The Body Shop International PLC. in 2014 filed an opposition against the trademark registration\u00a0No. M 67\u00a0497 with respect to goods in class 3.","insights_1_description":"Ruling of the Supreme Court of Latvia in the administrative case No. A420209716 (16 November, 2018)<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nOur client The Body Shop International PLC. in 2014 filed an opposition against the trademark registration\u00a0No. M 67\u00a0497 with respect to goods in class 3.\r\n\r\n\u00a0. The opposition was based on detriment to the well-known and reputed marks \u201cTHE BODY SHOP\u201d and likelihood of confusion between the marks \u201cTHEFACESHOP\u201d and \u201cTHE BODY SHOP\u201d.\r\n\r\nThroughout all instances this case was handled by the trademark and design attorney, lawyer Gatis Mer\u017evinskis and the trademark attorney, lawyer Gunta Zari\u0146a.\r\n\r\nAt first, the Board of Appeal of the Latvian Patent Office admitted the opposition as well-reasoned and decided to invalidate the mark \u201cTHEFACESHOP\u201d. Afterwards, the owner of the contested mark appealed the decision of the Industrial Property Board of Appeal before the Administrative District Court. Later on, another appeal was filed before the Administrative Regional Court, which resulted in the final appeal before the Supreme Court of Latvia. All court instances acknowledged the opposition as well-established, while the Supreme Court rejected to initiate cassation proceedings at all.\r\n\r\nTo go in more detail, the Administrative Regional Court fully supported argumentation and the \u201cglobal appreciation\u201d test carried out by the Administrative District Court. As it was mentioned in the judgment of the first instance court, the marks at issue are sufficiently similar to cause associations and cause detriment to the distinctiveness and reputation of the famous \u201cTHE BODY SHOP\u201d marks. Even though the contested mark \u201cTHEFACESHOP\u201d is written as one word due, the bold letters in the middle of the mark clearly splits this mark into three words \u201cTHE FACE SHOP\u201d. This fact contributes to the phonetic similarity between \u201cTHE BODY SHOP\u201d and \u201cTHE FACE SHOP\u201d. As a matter of fact, the court admits that the contested mark has been made in a very similar manner in comparison with the earlier marks. They all have the same length, the same number of letters, the font and the beginning and endings of marks are identical.\r\n\r\nOverall, the courts referred to the settled CJEU case-law, which foresees that the average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole and does not analyze its various details. In fact, rarely consumers see the marks right next to each other, but after a while, so the first impression of the common elements is kept in the mind of consumers.\r\n\r\nBoth the Administrative District Court and Regional Administrative Court acknowledged high reputation of \u201cTHE BODY SHOP\u201d marks in Latvia and the EU. Thus, these marks enjoy a broader scope of protection<\/strong>. Further, the Administrative District Court highlighted some peculiarities in the production of cosmetics \u2013 producers create various cosmetic lines for consumers and use marks, which are composed of common dominating elements or the name of the company. This finding was supported by the Administrative Regional Court, too.\r\n\r\nTo sum up, all court instances recognized possible detriment to the marks \u201cTHE BODY SHOP\u201d, which would result in attraction of inattentive consumers at the expense of long-standing marketing campaigns. Further, according to the courts\u2019 findings, the fact that registration of the contested mark would lessen value and distinctiveness is certain<\/strong>. This is because consumers who recognise \u201cTHE BODY SHOP\u201d products would be left with the impression that products with the designation \u201cface\u201d is a particular product line devoted to face care.","insights_1_authors":[2496],"insights_2_type":"Sticky","insights_2_title":"","insights_2_button":"","insights_2_hidden":true},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/aaalaw.lv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/insights\/2896","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/aaalaw.lv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/insights"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/aaalaw.lv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/insights"}],"acf:post":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aaalaw.lv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/team\/2496"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aaalaw.lv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1256"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/aaalaw.lv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2896"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"services","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aaalaw.lv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/services?post=2896"},{"taxonomy":"topics","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aaalaw.lv\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/topics?post=2896"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}