You can't buy love ... nor can you prevent others from using it in their trade marks

The Cartier's LOVE trade mark
"Can anyone have a monopoly over love?"

This is an interesting and deep question ... and perhaps even more so in a trade mark context, as the Singapore IP Office recently discovered. 

In a decision issued on 20 December last, this IP Office had to consider this very question in the context of an opposition filed by Cartier: 
More precisely, can a trader prevent other traders from registering a trade mark which includes the word “LOVE” for use on jewellery? 
Cartier filed an opposition, relying on its earlier 'LOVE' figurative trade mark (in which the O is replaced with the device of Cartier's iconic slotted screw head e the E is in lower case) for, inter alia, jewellery. The opposition related to MoneyMax Jewellery's application to register the signs below as Singapore trade marks for jewellery in Class 14, and retail and other services relating to jewellery in Class 35:
The first Cartier 'LOVE' piece was designed in 1969: it is the famous bracelet that can only be removed using a gold screwdriver that is sold together with the bracelet. A “modern love handcuffs”, it is intended to symbolize the attachment between two lovers. 

The Hearing Officer noted that Cartier is not the only owner of a 'LOVE' trade mark. In dismissing the opposition, the decision also stresses how the word 'love' is commonly used by jewellery traders and should not be monopolized by any trader. 

The Hearing Officer relied extensively on the judgment in Love & Co Pte Ltd v The Carat Club Pte Ltd [2009] 1 SLR(R) 561. In that case the Singapore High Court invalidated the defendant’s plain word mark 'LOVE' which was registered in respect of jewellery, precious stones and precious metals in Class 14, on grounds that it both lacked distinctive character and was an indication which may serve to designate the intended purpose of jewellery (that is, showing love).

Let's see a bit more in detail how the Hearing Officer reasoned.

Cartier's LOVE
bracelet ...
Comparison of the signs

Considering the relative grounds within section 8 of the Singapore Trade Marks Act, the Hearing Officer found that it was first necessary to identify which elements of the opponent's sign would be distinctive. 

Certainly this would not be the case of the word 'LOVE' as such in relation to jewellery. Rather, the distinctive elements of the sign are the screw-head device and possibly the use of a small letter 'e'.

Neither of these elements are present in the applicant's sign.

Hence, the signs should be considered dissimilar. 

Distinctiveness of the applicant's sign

Cartier also attempted to rely on the High Court's Love decision to argue that the applicant's sign should not be registered, it being devoid of distinctive character.

... and an IPKat-approved alternative
for lovers on a budget
The Hearing Officer rejected this argument, and held that the combination of the Chinese words (which mean 'love gold'), enclosed in a rectangular device, with the words 'LOVE' and 'GOLD', and the arrangement of each of these features as depicted in the application, render the sign as a whole distinctive [really?].


The Hearing Officer concluded as follows:
A bracelet may represent a metaphorical shackle of a person’s loved one. The word “LOVE”, however, should be free for traders to incorporate into their trade marks for jewellery.
In other words: you might need the gold screwdriver to free your beloved from their Cartier bracelet ... but freeing 'LOVE' from trade mark protection (at least for jewellery) might be easier.
You can't buy love ... nor can you prevent others from using it in their trade marks You can't buy love ... nor can you prevent others from using it in their trade marks Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati on Saturday, January 05, 2019 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.