Time is Up for Swatch

A seven year dispute has finally come to a head, with the General Court holding in T 71/14 Swatch AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Panavision Europe Ltd. Panavision, a manufacturer of cameras, had applied for the words SWATCHBALL in 2007 for a range of goods ands services, including publications and retailing of lighting and photography products . Panavision specifically excluded its goods and services away from timekeeping. Swatch is the registered owner of the words SWATCH as well as a stylised version of these words for products such as jewellery, clocks and watches. The General Court noted that the signs at issue were similar to an average degree and the earlier SWATCH marks do have a particularly strong reputation. The focus was then placed on whether the relevant public would establish a link between the marks at issue. It was concluded that despite the similarity of the marks and the undeniable reputation of SWATCH, the absence of similarity between the goods and services in question and the differences between their relevant publics was such that this would exclude the existence of any link between the marks at issue. The case reminds us that even a brand with an incontestable reputation will still not always be able to prevent a third party from using a similar mark if the targeted consumers are different and the goods and services in question do not overlap. The monopoly of the trade mark owner is not always all-encompassing and it seems that Swatch may have to call time on this dispute.

Would you like to read more articles like this?