Armani has suffered a defeat at the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland, which ruled that Swiss watchmaker Glycine’s trademark is not confusingly sim

roadwarrior

Grand Tyme Master
Founding Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2014
Messages
64,649
Armani targeted Glycine, which is owned by Invicta Watch Group


Armani hit with TM defeat by top Swiss court
18-07-2019
Rory O'Neil

https://www.worldipreview.com/news/armani-hit-with-tm-defeat-by-top-swiss-court-18357


Armani requested that Glycine Watch SA be ordered to abstain from using the stylised 'wing crown' logo and the word 'AIRMAN', based on both its earlier trademark rights and the Swiss Act against Unfair Competition (UCA). with and w/o the additional word 'AIRMAN'. An appeal is currently pending at the Supreme Court.

672806.jpg

The ‘Glycine’ mark features the name of the watch brand with a stylised black and white lines, which Armani claimed was confusingly similar to its own eagle wing logo.

Armani claimed that the likelihood of confusion was increased by the highly-distinctive character of its eagle logo.

Last November, the Berne court sided with Armani, ruling that there was a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.

Glycine has now successfully appealed that ruling, succeeding in having the judgment overturned and Armani’s 2017 trademark infringement complaint dismissed.

In the latest judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that the Berne court had incorrectly found a likelihood of confusion between the marks.

“The only thing the two signs have in common is the motif of the wings,” the Supreme Court ruling said, adding that “even these are represented very differently” (translated from German).

The latest ruling noted that the Berne court had observed a number of differences between the two marks, including that Armani’s mark more closely resembles an eagle compared to the “flatter” design of Glycine’s logo.

According to the Supreme Court, however, the lower court failed to draw the correct conclusion from its observations.

“...it is precisely when the impression of remembrance is dominated by the large features of a shape and not by the details, that the above mentioned differences in the assessment of the likelihood of confusion should have been more strongly taken into account,” the Supreme Court judgment said.

Armani had also argued that the likelihood of confusion was even greater given that Glycine’s most famous brand is the ‘Airman’ range, which features the same letters.

But the Supreme Court ruled that Armani had failed to make this clear “in concrete terms”, therefore falling short of its obligation to supply a statement of reasons.

In a statement sent to WIPR, Glycine’s parent company Invicta said it was “very pleased” with the decision, and pledged to “zealously protect and defend its portfolio of IP rights around the world”.

Glycine’s victory at the Supreme Court is the latest victory for the Swiss watchmaker in its battle with Armani.

In February, a European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) appeals board upheld a previous decision which found no likelihood of confusion between the two companies’ marks.

Invicta had applied to register the “Glycine” mark at the EUIPO, which found that it was different at “all levels, visually, aurally and conceptually”, from Armani’s.

https://www.patentlitigation.ch/tag/glycine-watch/



Yet another trademark case (a quite fashionable one), while still nothing is currently surfacing at the FPC.

Case No. HG 17 77 | Decision of 9 November 2018

As already reported in the newspaper ‘Der Bund’ on 19 December 2018, the Swiss watch manufacturer Glycine Watch SA was ordered to abstain from using its current logo because it could be confused with the logo of the luxury label Giorgio Armani.

Glycine had been distributing and promoting its watches under its old label already for quite a long time, and the old logo had not been objected to by Armani. But Armani felt uncomfortable with Glycine’s new logo that had been introduced in 2015. It is the design of the crown that had been changed: The crown seemingly got wings … — or is it an eagle?
glycine_old_website-300x118.png
Glycine’s old website logo
glycine_new_website-300x118.png
Glycine’s logo at stake
Glycine had sought trademark protection for both the old and the new logo, as follows:
This is how the different Glycine logos appeared on watches, compared to an Armani watch:
gycine_watch_old_logo-221x300.png
Glycine w old logo
glycine_watch_new_logo-221x300.png
Glycine w new logo
armani_watch-221x300.png
Armani watch
Now, are Glycine’s new logo and Armani’s eagle logo confusingly similar?

Armani invoked the following trademarks:
Armani considered that Glycine’s new logo would create a likelihood of confusion with its own brand. After having sent warning letters to Invicta Watch Company of America, Inc. (the American parent company of Glycine Watch SA) and also directly to Glycine Watch SA, Armani finally brought an action before the Commercial Court Berne. Armani requested that Glycine Watch SA be ordered to abstain from using the stylised ‘wing crown’ logo and the word ‘AIRMAN’, based on both its earlier trademark rights and the Swiss Act against Unfair Competition (UCA).

The Commercial Court Berne indeed forbid the use of the logo

CJ4JX4FZVCC523YA2TMALSKFLGPN5PO5Y2YYTOUVHSFDFFBV5SK7NDB6VENU223ZTFHB3BEO3SPH4-300x92.jpg


with and w/o the additional word ‘AIRMAN’. An appeal is currently pending at the Supreme Court.

It is always interesting to compare decisions of different courts and offices. Armani had also filed an opposition against the corresponding European Union trademark no. 015910301 with the EUIPO, based on its older trademark no. 015743891.
The EUIPO rejected Armani’s opposition (case no. B 2 832 882); see the decision here. An appeal is currently still pending.

While the case before the EUIPO was an opposition and the one before the Commercial Court Berne was a trademark infringement case, both had to assess similar issues. The Commercial Court Berne took notice of the EUIPO’s earlier decision (¶34.3.5), but did not agree in respect of the similarity of the signs and the degree of brand awareness.

The Opposition Division of the EUIPO had concluded that insufficient evidence had been submitted to support the assumption of a well-known mark. Consequently, it considered the distinctiveness of Armani’s mark as just normal. As to the similarity of the signs, the EUIPO held (¶e, fourth paragraph) that
[…] the distinctive verbal element ‘GLYCINE’ is of primary importance and the figurative element is of less impact. […], the presence of the term ‘GLYCINE’, on goods bearing the contested mark, in conjunction with a markedly different bird device is sufficient to avoid confusion.​
In striking contrast, the Commercial Court Berne concluded that the plaintiff’s trademarks were indeed well-known trademarks, with an extended scope also for watches (¶31.3.3):
The Court considers the reputation of the applicant’s marks […] for fashion to be notorious. […] Furthermore, the Court assumes that the resulting extended scope of protection must also be affirmed for watches, as very common fashion accessories.​
The Commercial Court Berne neither agreed with the EUIPO’s assessment of similiarity of the signs, but rather applied the regular principle that even the addition of an entirely different word element does not alter the similarity of the signs in the case of an identical or only slightly altered adoption of the dominant figurative element; ¶¶34.2.2, 34.3.4.
Despite the size of the word element, the figurative element is better remembered in this case because, due to its visual similarity, it evokes a reflexive association with the plaintiff’s well-known eagle marks and is thus characteristic of the overall impression.​
It will be interesting to follow the further course of the proceedings at the appeal stage, both at the Swiss Supreme Court and the EUIPO.

Reported by Thorsten MÜLL and Martin WILMING



BIBLIOGRAPHY

Case No. HG 17 77 | Decision of 9 November 2018

Giorgio Armani S.p.A.
./.
Glycine Watch SA

Panel of Judges:
  • Christian JOSI
  • Alexander PFISTER
  • Annemarie LEHMANN
Court Clerk:
  • Iris KÄMPFEN
Representative(s) of Plaintiff:
Representative(s) of Defendant:


FULL TEXT DECISION*

Commercial Court Berne
Case HG 17 77

https://www.patentlitigation.ch/the...DEmbGFuZz1lbi1VUw==#page=&zoom=auto&pagemode=

https://www.patentlitigation.ch/the...TEwMSZsYW5nPWVuLVVT#page=&zoom=auto&pagemode=
 
:hmm:After all these years, Armani decides there is a trademark issue with the Glycine logo. I think it's just prejudice against Invicta owning the brand.

Glycine watch
Wristwatch company

glycine-watch.ch Description

Glycine is a wristwatch manufacturer, founded in 1914, and based in Bienne, Switzerland. It is famed for its Airman line, debuted in 1953, a collection of GMT watches featuring 24-hour analog dials and rotating bezels, favoured by both military and commercial pilots. Wikipedia
Parent organization: Invicta Watch Group
Founder: Eugène Meylan
Founded: 1914
Headquarters: Biel/Bienne, Switzerland

Glycine owned by Invicta
American watch business Invicta Watch Group has confirmed the acquisition of Glycine, a 100 year old Swiss maker best known for its Airman range of pilot watches.Aug 15, 2016


https://www.ablogtowatch.com/invicta...ycine-watches/
Armani logo
Private
Fashion
Leisure
1975; 45 years ago
Giorgio Armani
Sergio Galeotti[SUP][1][/SUP]
Milan
,
Italy
Worldwide

  • Giorgio Armani
  • Cristiano Armani
11px-Increase2.svg.png
€2.90 billion (2016)
7,309 (2019)
armani.com
Giorgio Armani S.p.A. (pronounced [?d?ord?o ar?ma?ni]) is an Italian luxury fashion house founded by Giorgio Armani which designs, manufactures, distributes and retails haute couture, ready-to-wear, leather goods,
 
Back
Top Bottom