General Court rules in Asos v Assos
Written by Aasim Durrani on 08 May 2014« Return to Reading Room
Asos appealed to the Board of Appeal, which agreed that the Class 18 goods were not similar to the opponent's goods and overturned this part of the first instance decision. However, the Board of Appeal rejected Asos' arguments of peaceful coexistence and upheld the decision in relation to goods and services under Classes 3, 25 and 35.
Both parties then appealed to the General Court, with Asos seeking protection in Classes 3, 25 and 35 and Roger Maier seeking protection in Class 18. The General Court, however, refused to depart from the Board of Appeal's decision. It rejected Asos' argument that its word mark would be perceived as an abbreviation for "As Seen On Screen" and that no likelihood of confusion would arise as a result, explaining that the majority of the public would not be aware of this and that the likelihood of confusion would not therefore be mitigated in any meaningful way.
In relation to Roger Maier's argument as to the goods in Class 18, the General Court upheld the Board of Appeal's decision, reasoning that goods in Class 18 are not complimentary to those in Class 25. It further explained that there would not be a likelihood of confusion even if those goods were distributed through the same channels.
Want to speak
Complete the form below and we’ll call you back free of charge.