Jack Wills Ltd vs House of Fraser (Stores) Limited

In a recent High Court decision, Mr Justice Arnold ruled that House of Fraser had infringed registered trade marks of the well-known clothing company Jack Wills.

The case centred on Jack Wills’ logos of a Pheasant with a top hat and a cane, one of which is registered in respect of a wide range of goods and services including clothing, footwear and headgear.

Jack Wills asserted that House of Fraser’s use of a logo of a Pigeon wearing a top hat, on cardboard tags attached to the exterior of clothing sold under the Linea brand, infringed their rights.

The logos in dispute were:

Jack Wills’ Pheasant logo of a pheasant with a top hat and cane  House of Fraser’s Pigeon logo of a pigeon with a top hat and bow tie

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jack Wills’ Pheasant logo                   House of Fraser’s Pigeon logo

A reasonable degree of visual similarity

In a comparison of the marks, Arnold J found that there was “a reasonable degree of visual similarity and a high degree of conceptual similarity between the marks”.

Further, in a comparison of the relevant goods, he found that “the goods in relation to which the Pigeon logo was used are identical to goods in respect of which the Jack Wills’ trade marks are registered”. Furthermore, he found that “the specific types of garments on which the Pigeon logo was used (shirts, sweaters, socks and so on) correspond closely to types of garments on which Jack Wills’ trade marks have been used”.

It is noted that other well-known clothing brands utilise logos of birds. For example, Hollister use a flying seagull, Lyle & Scott use an eagle with outstretched wings and Emporio Armarni use an eagle looking to the right. However, Arnold J noted that whilst “consumers will have become accustomed to distinguishing between different bird logos on clothing, they are not accustomed to distinguishing between logos consisting of silhouettes of anthropomorphic birds wearing top hats and other accessories of an English gentleman”.

There existed a likelihood of confusion

On this basis, it was held that there existed a likelihood of confusion on the part of the average consumer, compounded by consumer’s imperfect recollection of trade marks, as well as the tendency of the human eye to “see what it expects to see”. Consequently, House of Fraser must no longer use the infringing logo and may be liable to pay damages in addition to costs.

The full decision can be read at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/110.html#para11.

At Wilson Gunn we represent globally recognised labels in the high end clothing business through to independent fashion designers. To read more about our extensive experience in the Fashion sector, please click here

Contact us today

If you would like assistance with your trade mark matters, please do not hesitate to contact us.

 


© 2018 Wilson Gunn