Post by marsss25 on Mar 30, 2022 1:32:25 GMT
Glycine has been making watches for over a hundred years now. For their 100th anniversary they created an update logo:
Some say that the winged crown was to symbolize the air/pilot association of the watchmaker.
Shortly after their centennial anniversary, the company was acquired by Invicta. Invicta decided to keep the logo. Then, suddenly, the logo reverted back to the original.
What’s the story?
Reading the Trademark paperwork, I was able to figure out that Glycine deposited their new logo design for registration on 2015-02-25. It was first published on Swissreg on 2015-07-05.
While reading this material, I found out that the date of transfer for the trademarks to the Invicta Watch Company was effected on 2016-08-30. Registry for the original logo was transferred at the same time.
Then, enter Giorgio Armani.
Armani claimed the new Glycine logo could too easily be confused with their own logo.
And so the hearings began. In a published judgement from 2018-12-13 the EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office) noted:
[…] the distinctive verbal element ‘GLYCINE’ is of primary importance and the figurative element is of less impact. […], the presence of the term ‘GLYCINE’, on goods bearing the contested mark, in conjunction with a markedly different bird device is sufficient to avoid confusion.
However, it appears that the Commercial Court of Berne stated the exact opposite:
Despite the size of the word element, the figurative element is better remembered in this case because, due to its visual similarity, it evokes a reflexive association with the plaintiff’s well-known eagle marks and is thus characteristic of the overall impression.
Then the appeals started.
At some point, on or around 2019-06-12, the Invicta Watch Company withdrew the trademark, thus ending the argument. The original logo returned to the watch line.
Some say that the winged crown was to symbolize the air/pilot association of the watchmaker.
Shortly after their centennial anniversary, the company was acquired by Invicta. Invicta decided to keep the logo. Then, suddenly, the logo reverted back to the original.
What’s the story?
Reading the Trademark paperwork, I was able to figure out that Glycine deposited their new logo design for registration on 2015-02-25. It was first published on Swissreg on 2015-07-05.
While reading this material, I found out that the date of transfer for the trademarks to the Invicta Watch Company was effected on 2016-08-30. Registry for the original logo was transferred at the same time.
Then, enter Giorgio Armani.
Armani claimed the new Glycine logo could too easily be confused with their own logo.
And so the hearings began. In a published judgement from 2018-12-13 the EUIPO (European Union Intellectual Property Office) noted:
[…] the distinctive verbal element ‘GLYCINE’ is of primary importance and the figurative element is of less impact. […], the presence of the term ‘GLYCINE’, on goods bearing the contested mark, in conjunction with a markedly different bird device is sufficient to avoid confusion.
However, it appears that the Commercial Court of Berne stated the exact opposite:
Despite the size of the word element, the figurative element is better remembered in this case because, due to its visual similarity, it evokes a reflexive association with the plaintiff’s well-known eagle marks and is thus characteristic of the overall impression.
Then the appeals started.
At some point, on or around 2019-06-12, the Invicta Watch Company withdrew the trademark, thus ending the argument. The original logo returned to the watch line.