Legal updates and opinions
News / News
United Kingdom – game of thrones vs game of vapes
The UK Intellectual Propety Office (“UKIPO”) has dismissed Home Box Office (“HBO”) trade mark opposition filed against the registration of GAME OF VAPES in class 34 for ‘Tobacco, smoker articles’, matches’ in the UK.
HBO relied on its prior EU registration for GAME OF THRONES in class 34 asserting that there is likelihood of confusion between the two marks and as a consequence of the repute associated with GAME OF THRONES, the use and registration of GAME OF VAPES by the applicant, Maanohan Singh, would dilute it’s distinctive character also causing damage to it’s reputation.
Although the UKIPO acknowledged the respective goods and trade channels for class 34 goods are the same, it held that there is an overall conceptual difference between the marks due to the addition of the words THRONES (referring to Kings and Queens) and VAPES (smoking devices) respectively with the result that there is no direct confusion.
Further, while one might assume that there is a connection or association between the marks GAME OF THRONES and GAME OF VAPES, there was no finding that GAME OF VAPES would be presumed a natural brand extension of GAME OF THRONES but instead “a comedic play” on GAME OF THRONES. HBO demonstrated a limited reputation in relation to the TV show with no repute extending to other activities and therefore ‘no commonality between the respective fields of activity’.
COMMENT
The trade mark GAMES OF THRONES may well not be associated with tobacco and smokers articles which is classified in class 34. It is likely that it filed its trade mark in a range of classes, not only confined to goods and services in direct relation to its hit television production, GAME OF THRONES, as defensive trade mark registrations.
Registering and maintaining defensive registrations is in accordance with best practice by brand owners, increasing protection for brands for a range of goods and services in various classes and territories.
In Werksmans Legal Brief January 2019 edition concerning the cancellation of the PRIMARK and BIG MAC registrations respectively, a possible disadvantage to registering and maintaining defensive registrations is that a trade mark is vulnerable to cancellation if it has not been used for a certain period of time post registration (access article here).
Non-use cancellations do, however, need to be brought by an interested party before the relevant authorities therefore the value attributed by securing registrations, albeit defensively, certainly outweighs the risk of cancellation for non-use.
It is has been suggested that if HBO had registered the trade mark ‘GAME OF’ the UKIPO may have favoured HBO, the opposed mark GAME OF VAPES incorporating these two identical words. This decision infers that brand owners should also consider defensive registrations that comprise separate elements contained in its marks.
Latest News
The right not to be dismissed – a multiplicity of rights and actions
By Bradley Workman-Davies, Director The Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 has been a significant part of the South African [...]
Amendment to national minimum wage and sectoral determination minimum wages
By Jacques van Wyk, Director, Andre van Heerden, Senior Associate and Thabisa Yantolo, Candidate Attorney On 17 February 2020 the [...]
An employee’s duty to disclose information when applying for employment
By Jacques van Wyk, Director, Andre van Heerden, Senior Associate and Thabisa Yantolo, Candidate Attorney Issue Whether an employee who [...]
A horse by the same name?
By Janine Hollesen, Director The High Court in Pretoria has recently ordered the cancellation of numerous trade mark registrations for [...]
The Tax Implications of eliminating Treasury Shares
By Ryan Killoran, Director It is fairly common for a subsidiary company to hold shares in its holding company, colloquially [...]
A brief retrospective on two cases about UIF and asylum seekers
By Dakalo Singo, Director Introduction The end of February 2020 marks the anniversary of an important court victory which confirmed [...]
