- 1 -

TRADE MARKS ORDINANCE (CAP. 559) OPPOSITION TO TRADE MARK APPLICATION NO. 300402759

MARK: CLASSES: 18 and 25 APPLICANT: PACIFIC RIM INDUSTRIES PTE LTD OPPONENT: VALENTINO S.P.A _____________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION Background 1. On 14 April 2005, the applicant filed an application for registration (“the subject application”) under the Trade Marks Ordinance (Cap. 559) (“the Ordinance”) for the registration of the following mark :-

(“the suit mark”). 2. Registration is sought in respect of goods of the following classes :- Class 18

skins (cattle-); skin (goldbeaters'-); gold beaters' skin; cattle skins; leatherboard; curried skins; pelts; animal skins; leather, unworked orsemi-worked; butts [parts of kides]; imitation leather; leather(imitation-); skins of chamois, other than for cleaning purposes; chamoisleather; other than for cleaning purposes; bags (net-) for shopping; beach bags; trimmings of leather for furniture; card cases [notecases]; music cases; bags (game-) [hunting accessory]; straps for skates; boxes of vulcanised fibre; travelling bags; valises; bags (garment-) for travel; travelling trunks; travelling sets [leatherware]; garment bags for travel;

- 2 -

bags for climbers; straps (leather-); straps of leather [saddlery]; tool bags of leather [empty]; boxes of leather or leather board; bands of leather;valves of leather; leather shoulder belts; boxer of leather (hat-); leather thongs; leather leads; leather thread; cases, of leather or leatherboard; leather leashes; leather straps; coverings (furniture-) of leather; leather twist; chin straps, ol leather; laces (leather-); purses; pocket wallets; leatheroid box; soldier's equipment (straps for-); handbags; frames (handbag-); handles (suitcase-); school satchels; wallets (pocket-); satchels (school-); school bags; coverings of skins (furs); bags forcampers; suitcases; suitcase handles; varsity cases [not fitted]; key cases[leatherware]; belts (leather shoulder-); pouches, of leather, for packaging; bags [envelopes, pouches] of leather, for packaging;envelops, of leather, for packaging; sling bags for carrying infants;backpacks; skates (straps for-); trunks [luggage]; wheeled shopping bags; springs (casings, of leather, for plate-); casings, of leather, for springs; haversacks; canvas box; chain mesh purses, not of preciousmetal; purses, not of precious metal; briefcases; attache cases; shoppingbags; parasols; umbrellas; umbrella sticks; umbrella handles; umbrellarings; covers (umbrella-); umbrella or parasol ribs; frames for umbrellas or parasols. Class 25 bath robes; bath sandals; bath slippers; bathing caps; bathing drawers;belts [clothing]; breeches [for wear]; clothing; coats; top coats ;footwear; galoshes; garters; girdles; gloves [clothing]; dressing gowns; gymnastics [clothing]; gymnastic shoes; hosiery; jackets [clothing];jerseys [clothing]; jumpers [shirt fronts]; knitwear [clothing]; clothing ofleather; clothing of imitations of leather; liveries; mittens; neckties; overalls; overcoats; pants; pelisses; pullovers; pyjamas; sandals; shirts;shoes; singlets; skirts; slippers; smocks; sock suspenders; socks; solesfor footwear; boots for sports; sports jerseys; sports shoes; stockings;stuff jackets [clothing]; suits; bathing suits; suspenders; sweat-absorbent underclothing [underwear]; sweaters; swimsuits; tee-shirts; togas; top hats; trouser straps; trousers; underclothing; anti-sweat underclothing; underpants; underwear; anti-sweat underwear; uniforms; vests; waistcoats; waterproofing clothing.

3. Particulars of the subject application were published on 3 November 2006. The opponent filed a notice of opposition with the “grounds of opposition” on 8 March 2007. 4. The opposition hearing was heard on 16 January 2013. Mr. Jeffrey Chau, counsel instructed by Messrs. Deacons, represented the opponent at the hearing. The applicant did not file a notice of intention to appear and was not represented at the hearing. 5. I reserved my decision at the conclusion of the hearing.

- 3 -

Grounds of opposition 6. The grounds on which the opponent opposes registration of the suit mark as stated in the grounds of opposition are sections 11(5)(b), 12(3), 12(4) and 12(5)(a) of the Ordinance. 7. The opponent stated that it is the proprietor of a well-known family of “VALENTINO” trade marks including the and logos and variations (“the opponent’s marks”). The marks are registered in Hong Kong and in many countries worldwide. The opponent relies on 11 marks registered in Hong Kong as listed in a Schedule A which is annexed to the grounds of opposition. Particulars of the 11 marks are reproduced at the Appendix. Schedule B to the grounds of opposition sets out particulars of registrations or applications for registration of the “VALENTINO” related marks in various countries or regions in the world. 8. The opponent1 has used the opponent's marks, inter alia, extensively in various places worldwide including Hong Kong in respect of prestigious goods including, inter alia, leather and imitations of leather, animal skin, hides, leather goods, leather accessories, trunks, travelling bags, belts, bags, purses, handbags, wallets, attaché cases, brief cases, card cases, pocket wallets, umbrellas, parasols, walking sticks, whips, harness, saddlery; clothing, footwear, headgear, knitwear, polo shirts and T-shirts, sweaters, blouses, raincoats, outer clothing, trousers, top coats, sports wear, swimwear, ties, gloves, scarves, hosiery, shoes, boots, slippers, sports shoes; soaps, perfumery and cosmetic products; optical apparatus and instruments, spectacles and sunglasses and their parts and fittings; precious metals and their alloys and goods in precious metals or coated therewith, gold and silverware; jewellery, costume jewellery, precious stones, horological and chronometric apparatus and instruments and parts and fittings therefor; fashion accessories, smokers’ articles, textiles, towels, bed and table covers, bathroom and other ceramic tiles, furniture, glassware, porcelain, wallpaper, and other luxury products and accessories (“the opponent’s goods”). 9. The opponent asserts that, by reason of the long continued and extensive use and promotion of the opponent’s marks by the opponent and its predecessors and/or licensees, the marks have acquired recognition by the public at large as unique to identify the opponent’s goods and have acquired significant and valuable goodwill and reputation in favour of the opponent. 1 In this decision, the references to the opponent also encompass its predecessors, as the case may be.

- 4 -

10. The suit mark incorporates and closely resembles the opponent’s marks by incorporating the opponent’s housemark “VALENTINO” and the “ ” logo (“the logo”). The goods applied for also overlap with and/or are associated with the goods covered by the opponent’s registrations in Hong Kong and other countries. Counter-statement 11. The applicant filed a counter-statement on 7 June 2007. 12. The applicant avers that the opponent is in essence claiming the exclusive right to use the name “VALENTINO” which the opponent is not entitled to. There are other users and owners of trade marks containing the name “VALENTINO” in other countries and Hong Kong, for example “GIOVANNI VALENTINO” and “MARIO VALENTINO”. 13. In view of the lack of visual, aural and conceptual similarities between the suit mark and the opponent’s marks, there is no likelihood that the applied for goods would be perceived by the public as being provided by or connected with the opponent. 14. It is further averred that the suit mark was created and adopted by the applicant independently without reference to and/or knowledge of the opponent’s marks. The suit mark is inherently distinctive and the applicant has filed applications for registration in other countries. 15. The applicant first used the suit mark on the goods applied for in around 1999 and has been using the suit mark on the applicant’s goods and business since then. Sales were made in countries and regions including Singapore, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, the United States and the Philippines. 16. The suit mark has acquired substantial goodwill and reputation for the applicant’s goods and business independent of the opponent’s marks as a result of the sales achieved and the substantial promotional efforts. The applicant’s business conducted under the suit mark has been developed with honest and genuine commercial interest in Singapore since 1999. There is no intention to make use of or take advantage of the goodwill and reputation, if any, of the opponent’s marks.

- 5 -

Evidence 17. Under Rule 18 of the Trade Marks Rules (Cap.559, sub. leg.)(“Rule/s”), the opponent filed a statutory declaration from Antonella Andrioli, together with exhibits, which was declared on 4 February 2010, and a first supplementary statutory declaration from the same Antonella Andrioli, together with exhibits, which was declared on 27 May 2010 (“Andrioli’s first statutory declaration” and “Andrioli’s supplementary statutory declaration” respectively). 18. The applicant did not file any evidence under Rule 19. Although the applicant has in the counter-statement referred to the use made of the suit mark and the creation of the suit mark independently, these indications are not contained in and filed by way of statutory declaration or affidavit in accordance with Rules 79 and 80 of the Rules. As such, I would not take those indications as the applicant’s evidence. Relevant date 19. The relevant date for considering the opposition is 14 April 2005, the date of the subject application for registration. Opponent’s evidence Andrioli’s first statutory declaration 20. Ms. Andrioli has been the proxy holder of the opponent since 1 September 2006, and is duly authorised by the opponent to make the declaration. 21. She deposes that the opponent acquired the “VALENTINO” trade mark portfolio of Valentino Globe S.p.A and associated business, goodwill and reputation in September 2003. The opponent is wholly-owned by Valentino Fashion Group S.p.A.. 22. The opponent is in the business of designing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing a wide range of luxury and fashion products. The products cover the goods described as “the opponent’s goods” in paragraph 8 above. 23. The opponent is the proprietor of the family of “VALENTINO” trade marks including word marks such as “VALENTINO”, “VALENTINO GARAVANI”,

- 6 -

“VALENTINO ROMA”, “R.E.D. VALENTINO”, device marks featuring a or sign, and other composite marks formed by devices of such sign plus word

elements such as and . 24. A list of registrations and a list of pending applications for registration of the opponent’s marks in Hong Kong with certified entries from the Trade Mark Register are produced at Exhibit AA-11. Another list of registrations in other countries together with copies of certificates of registrations are produced at Exhibit AA-12. 25. The opponent is an international luxury fashion brand founded in 1959 by designer Mr. Valentino Garavani in Rome, Italy. Ms. Andrioli sets out in paragraphs 5 to 17 of her first statutory declaration an account of how Mr. Garavani established his business and subsequently attained recognition and fame in the fashion industry in Italy and internationally. 26. The opponent’s “VALENTINO” mark was first used on clothing in Italy in the late 1950s. Since then, the opponent’s predecessors had expanded the business in association with the housemark “VALENTINO” to encompass sales and production of the opponent’s goods and related services on a worldwide scale. 27. For the Hong Kong market, Ms. Andrioli deposes that the use of the mark “VALENTINO” and its variant marks began since at least the 1970s. The opponent’s predecessors and/or licensees have first used the mark in relation to the opponent’s goods in Hong Kong since at least the late 1980s and the mark since at least 1999/2000. Since then, these marks have been used continuously and extensively in Hong Kong in relation to the opponent’s goods. 28. In the 1970s, the opponent’s goods were sold by Joyce Boutique. Exhibit AA-13 is a copy of an article published in Forbes Hong Kong on 2 December 1996 on the interview of Ms. Joyce Ma, founder of Joyce Boutique Holdings. In the article, there was reference to the opening of the first Joyce Boutique in Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Central in 1970, and “VALENTINO” was one of the Italian labels of products offered in the Boutique. 29. Since at least the 1980s, the opponent’s goods were sold through The Swank Shop Ltd (“The Swank”), its licensee/distributor in Hong Kong. A printout from the website of The Swank is produced at Exhibit AA-14 which gives an account

- 7 -

of the business of The Swank since 1955 in selling products of various famous international fashion brands through its shops and boutiques. 30. The opponent’s goods were subsequently sold in boutiques jointly operated by the opponent and The Swank. In 2000, the opponent and The Swank established a joint venture company to promote and market the opponent’s goods. Copies of 7 undated photographs showing window displays and the interior of “VALENTINO” retail shops (said to be taken in Landmark and Mitsukoshi department stores in 1990, 1991 and 1995 respectively) are produced at Exhibit AA-15. 31. In 2005, the opponent acquired shares of The Swank in the joint venture V.S. Limited and became the sole owner of the retail operations in Hong Kong. As of 14 April 2005, the opponent through V.S. Limited operated 3 stores in Hong Kong. Copy of a press release dated 3 November 2005 retrieved from the website of www.valentinofashiongroup.com reported the acquisition of the shares of The Swank in the joint venture and the operation of shops and sales outlets selling the opponent’s goods in Hong Kong (Exhibit AA-16). 32. Exhibit AA-17 is a printout (printed on 20 August 2009) from http://corporate.valentino.com/home2.html showing the addresses of 5 retail outlets in Hong Kong. Exhibit AA-18 provides, inter alia, extracts of business registration records of Valentino Hong Kong Limited (formerly V.S. Limited) showing the dates from which a number of Valentino boutiques commenced business in Hong Kong. It can be discerned from the records that the earliest date of operation of one boutique was 1 September 2001. 33. Ms. Andrioli deposes that for the period from 1980 to 1983, the recorded sales figures of the opponent’s goods bearing the opponent’s marks in Hong Kong were roughly around US$1.16 million, i.e. approximately HK$9.048 million. For the period from 1990 to 1997, the annual sales figures of the opponent’s goods in Hong Kong ranged from HK$754,000 to HK$1.176 million. Exhibit AA-19 comprises copies of sales invoices randomly selected from 1980 to 2005 on sales conducted in Hong Kong. 34. The total worldwide turnover of the opponent’s goods for 2004 is approximately €42,240,159, and the figure for the first 3.5 months of 2005 up to 14 April 2005 is approximately €1,364,806. According to the press release issued by

- 8 -

Valentino Fashion Group on 10 November 2005, the net consolidated sales of the Group for the first 9 months of 2005 was €1,384.2 million, reflecting an increase of 11% from the figure of €1,244 million achieved for the same period in 2004 (Exhibit AA-20; printout downloaded from www.valentinofashiongroup.com). 35. On advertisement and promotion of the opponent’s marks, Ms. Andrioli states that the opponent’s marks have been extensively advertised and marketed worldwide including in Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, the opponent has promoted its marks by placing advertisements on light-boxes in Central and through direct advertising. The opponent also concentrates on advertisement through international fashion-oriented and beauty-oriented magazines, and enjoys regular editorial coverage in international magazines and newspapers most of which are available in Hong Kong. Brochures are distributed directly to customers, and fashion shows are held 4 times a year in Paris, Milan and other major cities. 36. During the period from 1993 to 1999, the worldwide advertising expenditure exceeded US$40 million. It is however not possible to apportion the share of the advertising expenditure among individual countries. 37. Ms. Andrioli deposes that Mr. Valentino Garavani has been known in the international press simply by “Valentino”, his forename, for the past 50 years, as shown in various publications and advertisements. 38. Copies of advertisements are produced at Exhibits AA-21, AA-22, AA-23 and AA-24 including advertisements in international magazines such as Vogue, Vanity Fair, Marie Claire, Elle etc which are available for sale in bookstores, newsstands and convenience stores in Hong Kong. 39. Exhibit AA-25 is a copy of a publication known as “CAMPAGNES PUBLICITAIRES 1968-2008” showing pictures of advertising campaigns of “VALENTINO” goods in various places worldwide. On one page, there is reference to a “valentino boutique” with an address in Hong Kong. 40. Exhibit AA-33 contains copies of sample advertisements in Femina magazines which were circulated in Hong Kong and in the Asian region in the 1970s and 1980s. 41. Exhibit AA-35 comprises copies of advertisements and newspaper

- 9 -

clippings from local newspapers from 1998 to 2005 referring to “VALENTINO” goods and/or marks in Hong Kong. There are copies showing goods including clothing, bags and shoes of the “VALENTINO” brand. There are also references to “VALENTINO” goods favoured by local celebrities, and the publicity aroused on occasions such as fashion shows. Copies of samples of archived news reports of Sing Tao Daily from April 2002 to 1 March 2005 touching on “VALENTINO” goods are produced at Exhibit AA-36. Copies of advertisements and reports extracted from local magazines such as the Style magazine of South China Morning Post from 2001 up to spring/summer 2005 are produced at Exhibit AA-37. 42. In paragraphs 63 to 66 of the statutory declaration, Ms. Andrioli refers to applications to register the suit mark (or variant marks) in Thailand, Italy and Taiwan which are either successfully opposed by the opponent, or are withdrawn. Exhibits AA-38 to AA-40 consist of copies of letters or decisions of successful oppositions against these applications. Andrioli’s supplementary statutory declaration 43. By the supplementary statutory declaration, Ms. Andrioli produces copies of advertisements placed in local publications in Hong Kong in relation to goods bearing the opponent’s marks which fall within Class 18 and Class 25 respectively. 44. Exhibits AA-1 to AA-12 are copies of advertisements placed in local magazines including Oriental Sunday, Ming Pao Weekly and Cosmopolitan in respect of the opponent’s leather goods such as wallets, key holder cases, bags and briefcases which fall within Class 18. The advertisements cover various dates from 1991 to 1993 and in 1996. 45. On Class 25 goods, Exhibits AA-14 to AA-23 are copies of advertisements and articles in local magazines and newspapers including Femina, Cosmopolitan, Ming Pao Weekly, Oriental Sunday, South China Morning Post, City magazine, Eve Essentials, Sun News, Sing Tao Daily and Takungpao in respect of the opponent’s clothing items. The materials cover various dates from 1982 to 1985, 1989 to 1997, and 1999 to 2005.

- 10 -

Opponent’s evidence of use 46. The opponent has filed voluminous evidence seeking to demonstrate the reputation achieved by the “VALENTINO” mark and other related marks as well as the use which has been made of these marks in respect of its goods before the relevant date. 47. There are copies of materials among the exhibits e.g. copies of advertisements placed in fashion magazines or publications published outside Hong Kong (Exhibits AA-21 to AA-25 to Andrioli’s first statutory declaration) which are either undated or do not relate to the Hong Kong market. Even if I were to take that some of these international publications were also circulated in Hong Kong, the extent of circulation is not known. As such, I am not prepared to accept these exhibits as supportive of the efforts of promotion of the opponent’s marks or goods in Hong Kong. In any event, I observe that there are evidence relevant to the Hong Kong market and can substantiate the efforts made in promoting the opponent’s marks or goods in Hong Kong. 48. Andrioli’s supplementary statutory declaration exhibits copies of advertisements in Oriental Sunday and Ming Pao Weekly from 1991 to 1993 showing

the use of the mark and mark in respect of leather goods such as wallets and key holder cases which are available for sale at the opponent’s collections boutiques and other retail outlets in Hong Kong (Exhibits AA-1 to AA-9). The

mark and “VALENTINO” mark are also used in advertisements of handbags placed in Cosmopolitan in 1996 which are available for sale at retail outlets in Hong Kong (Exhibits AA-11 and AA-12). 49. I have referred to Exhibit AA-33 above which includes copies of extracts from magazines published in the 1970s and 1980s. The extracts show men’s and women’s clothing items of the “VALENTINO” brand with references to “Valentino” or “華倫天奴” (the transliteration of “Valentino” in Chinese), or are advertised with the sign. On some copies, there are references to the availability of the clothing items at 詩韻公司 (the transliteration of “Swank company” in Chinese), Joyce Boutique or The Valentino Boutiques in Hong Kong. The earliest issue bears a reference to autumn/winter 1977, and the other issues show publication dates in the early 1980s. 50. Apart from Exhibits AA-33, AA35 to AA-37, Ms. Andrioli also produces

- 11 -

copies of advertisements of clothing items available at The Valentino Boutiques in Hong Kong back in 1982 to 1984 (Exhibit AA-14, Andrioli’s supplementary statutory

declaration). The advertisements show use of signs including and marks. There are coverages in Cosmopolitan in 1985, 1989, 1992 to 1996 showing pictures of clothing items and references to “Valentino” being the designer or the brand name. There is also a feature article in the April 1994 issue of Cosmopolitan giving an account of the career of Mr. Valentino and the expansion of business in mainland China since 1993 (Exhibit AA-15, Andrioli’s supplementary statutory declaration). 51. Some exhibits to Andrioli’s supplementary statutory declaration show articles and pictures in Ming Pao Weekly in 1993 and 1997 of fashion shows referring to “Valentino” as the designer or the brand name (Exhibit AA-16). Copies of other pictures and references to the “VALENTINO” brand published in the South China Morning Post and its magazine, the City Magazine, Eve’s Essential in the 1990s are also produced (Exhibits AA-18, AA-19 and AA-20). Exhibits AA-21 to AA-23 are copies of news clippings from local newspapers showing references to “Valentino” as the designer or the brand name. 52. Although the pictures and advertisements mostly show women’s clothing items, there are exhibits which show advertisements of men’s clothing items and jeans in Oriental Daily and City magazine in 1991 and 1992 (Exhibits AA-17 and AA-19, Andrioli’s supplementary statutory declaration). 53. Exhibit AA-19 to Andrioli’s first statutory declaration comprises random selection of copies of sales invoices from 1980 to 2005 showing the supply of goods to Hong Kong. The sales invoices cover goods ranging from wearing apparel, accessories, bags to shoes. The “VALENTINO” mark is printed on almost all sales invoices. Some invoices also show the use of the logo along with the “VALENTINO” mark. 54. Upon examining the opponent’s statutory declarations and the exhibits which are relevant to the Hong Kong market prior to the relevant date, I observe that the marks of “VALENTINO”/“Valentino” (whether appearing on its own or together with the logo or in the form of composite marks such as ) have been used and promoted in relation to leather goods and accessories. I have referred to the evidence dealing with advertisements and promotion on these goods which dated back to the early 1990s. It can also be discerned from some copies of the sales invoices produced that goods such as belts and bags are among the goods offered for

- 12 -

sale in the Hong Kong market. 55. I also observe that the marks of “VALENTINO”/ “Valentino” (whether appearing on its own, together with the logo or in the form of composite marks such as ) have been used in relation to clothing items and other goods. I have covered above the evidence of advertisements on clothing items going back to 1977, and there is use of the transliteration of “華倫天奴” for “Valentino”. There are numerous exhibits showing coverages in local newspapers and magazines featuring or referring to Valentino the designer, or goods designed by or bearing the brand of “Valentino”. 56. In my view, the “VALENTINO” mark or brand and the mark have acquired remarkable reputation and enhanced distinctiveness in Hong Kong in respect of the goods of the opponent. They have become widely recognized by the public in Hong Kong and would be relied upon by consumers for distinguishing the goods of the opponent from those of other undertakings. Opposition under section 12(3) of the Ordinance 57. Section 12(3) of the Ordinance provides as follows:

“A trade mark shall not be registered if– (a) the trade mark is similar to an earlier trade mark; (b) the goods or services for which the application for registration is

made are identical or similar to those for which the earlier trade mark is protected; and

(c) the use of the trade mark in relation to those goods or services is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public.”

58. According to section 7(1) of the Ordinance, in determining whether the use of a trade mark is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public, the Registrar may take into account all factors relevant in the circumstances, including whether the use is likely to be associated with an earlier trade mark. 59. Section 12(3) of the Ordinance is similar in effect to section 5(2) of the UK Trade Marks Act 1994 which implements Article 4(1)(b) of the First Council Directive 89/104 of 21 December 1988 of the Council of the European Communities. In determining the issue under section 12(3), I take into account the guidance and

- 13 -

principles provided by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Sabel BV v Puma AG [1998] R.P.C. 199, Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. [1999] R.P.C. 117, Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co GmbH v Klijsen Handel B.V. [2000] F.S.R. 77 and Marca Mode CV v Adidas AG [2000] E.T.M.R.723. The principles are set out in Julius Sämann Ltd v Tetrosyl Ltd [2006] F.S.R. 42 at para. 51, which have been adopted in the Hong Kong case of Guccio Gucci SpA v Gucci [2009] 5 HKLRD 28. They are as follows:

(a) The likelihood of confusion must be appreciated globally, taking account of all the relevant factors.

(b) The matter must be judged through the eyes of the average consumer of the goods in issue, who is deemed to be reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect.

(c) In order to assess the degree of similarity between the marks concerned the court must determine the degree of visual, aural or conceptual similarity between them and, where appropriate, evaluate the importance to be attached to those different elements taking into account the nature of the goods in question and the circumstances in which they are marketed.

(d) The visual, aural and conceptual similarities of the marks must therefore be assessed by reference to the overall impressions created by the marks bearing in mind their distinctive and dominant components. The perception of the marks in the mind of the average consumer plays a decisive role in the overall appreciation of the likelihood of confusion.

(e) The average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole and does not proceed to analyze its various details.

(f) There is a greater likelihood of confusion where the earlier trademark has a highly distinctive character, either per se or because of the use that has been made of it.

(g) The average consumer rarely has the chance to make direct comparisons between marks and must instead rely upon the imperfect picture of them he has kept in his mind; further the average consumer’s level of attention is likely to vary according to the category of goods in question.

(h) Appreciation of the likelihood of confusion depends upon the degree of similarity between the goods. A lesser degree of similarity between the marks may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the goods,

- 14 -

and vice versa.

(i) Mere association, in the sense that the later mark brings the earlier mark to mind, is not sufficient for the purpose of the assessment.

(j) But the risk that the public might believe that the goods come from the same or economically linked undertakings does constitute a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of the section.

60. Section 12(3) essentially prohibits the registration of a trade mark which would be likely to cause confusion on the part of the public as a result of its being similar to an earlier trade mark and because it is to be registered in respect of goods the same as or similar to those the subject of the earlier trade mark. I must therefore consider whether there are similarities between the suit mark and the opponent’s marks and the goods covered, and whether they would combine to create a likelihood of confusion. 61. Particulars of 11 marks which are registered in Hong Kong and are relied upon by the opponent are reproduced in the Appendix. These marks have dates of application for registration earlier than that of the suit mark. According to section 5(1)(a) of the Ordinance, these marks are earlier trade marks in relation to the suit mark. Comparison of marks 62. A comparison of the marks concerned has to be based on an overall appreciation of the visual, aural and conceptual similarities of the marks in question, taking into account the overall impressions given by the marks, and bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components. 63. In comparing the marks, I have to consider the perception of the marks in the mind of the average consumer of the goods and services in question. Registration of the suit mark is sought for the goods set out in paragraph 2 above. The applied for goods in Class 18 cover a wide variety of goods ranging from leather and imitation leather, goods such as bags made of leather or other materials, to umbrellas and parasols. As to the applied for goods in Class 25, they cover clothing items, footwear and headgear. 64. Although the majority of the applied for goods are consumer merchandise and the relevant consumers would be members of the general public in

- 15 -

Hong Kong, some of the goods such as “trimmings of leather for furniture” and “umbrella or parasol ribs” appear to target manufacturers and traders who look for such goods for business purposes. As such, the average consumer would comprise members of the general public as well as some manufacturers and traders in Hong Kong who are deemed to be reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. Members of the general public are expected to exercise an average level of care and attention in the selection of goods. As to the manufacturers and traders, they can generally be expected to exercise a higher level of care and attention. However, as the applied for goods relevant to them are not highly specialized or expensive items, the level of care and attention of this group of consumers will not differ much from that of members of the general public. In my view, the average consumer is expected to exercise an average to slightly above average level of care and attention in the selection of goods. 65. Mr. Chau on behalf of the opponent submitted the following on comparison of marks:-

(a) the suit mark comprises an eye-catching logo placed at the centre of the mark, and reproduces the opponent’s housemark “VALENTINO” in its entirety;

(b) emphasis is placed on the logo and the word “Valentino” by

adopting the logo in the suit mark; the logo and the word “Valentino” would be viewed by the average consumers as the dominant elements of the suit mark;

(c) the line dividing the logo and the words “Emilio Valentino” has no

trade mark significance and should be ignored; (d) the word “Emilio” is of much reduced significance; the word also

happens to be a word of 4 syllables as in “Garavani”; (e) viewing the suit mark as a whole, the suit mark is visually and

conceptually similar to the opponent’s registered marks in particular the

, , and marks all of which bear a prominent “V” logo and incorporates the mark “Valentino” in full; the and marks have exactly the same structure as the suit mark, with two words placed directly below a “V” logo;

- 16 -

(f) phonetically, the suit mark may be pronounced “V Emilio Valentino”,

“Emilio Valentino” or “Valentino” (given the emphasis on the logo in the suit mark which comprises “Valentino”).

66. The applicant contends that there is a lack of visual, aural and conceptual similarities between the suit mark and the opponent’s marks, and the suit mark is an inherently distinctive trade mark resulting from the combination of the word elements and the device (paragraphs 7 and 8, counter-statement). 67. I would first look at the suit mark. The suit mark consists of three elements, namely the logo, the words “Emilio Valentino” and a horizontal line in between these two elements. The logo displays the letter “V” in a stylized manner. It occupies about three-fifths of the height of the suit mark and is positioned at the centre above the horizontal line. The words “Emilio Valentino” are written in plain font without stylisation. The first letters “E” and “V” of the words “Emilio Valentino” are in capital letters which signify that this expression is a personal name. The horizontal line is in my view indistinctive and does not have any effect in terms of distinctiveness. 68. The logo, given its size and prominent position, is capable of attracting the attention of the average consumer. The styled letter “V” representing as corresponds to the first letter “V” of the word “Valentino”, and the logo has the effect of reinforcing or accentuating the significance of the word “Valentino” in the suit mark. 69. For the purpose of determining the ground of opposition based on section 12(3) of the Ordinance, I would compare the suit mark with the opponent’s

, and marks viz. trade mark numbers 199404866, 1996B11046 and 300032624 respectively which bear the closest resemblance to the suit mark having regard to the goods covered by these registrations (“the 3 opponent’s marks”). If the opponent succeeds in opposing the subject application based on the 3 opponent’s marks, the finding would be sufficient to dispose of the present case and there is no need for the opponent to rely on the other marks at the Appendix. 70. I would proceed to compare the suit mark with each of these marks visually, aurally and conceptually.

- 17 -

(A) Comparison with the opponent’s mark Visual comparison 71. Mr. Chau submitted that the mark has the same structure as the suit mark. I agree. Both the suit mark and the mark are formed by the combination of the respective “V” logos at the top and two words below. Although the suit mark also contains a horizontal line between the logo and the words, I do not consider the line has much significance. 72. Unlike the suit mark, the two words in the mark are written in the lower case. The word “Valentino” is placed after the word “Emilio” in the suit mark, whilst the word “valentino” is the first word in the mark. I am also mindful that the logo bears a different design when compared with the device in the mark. However, I consider it unlikely that these would make much difference to the visual impact, bearing in mind imperfect recollection and that marks are not compared side by side. The “V” logos in both marks can be readily recognized as representing the letter “V” and corresponds to the word “valentino” in the marks. The logos have the effect of accentuating the impression conveyed by the distinctive and dominant word “valentino” in both marks. 73. Following from the above, I find the suit mark similar to the mark visually. Aural comparison 74. Aurally, the suit mark would be pronounced “E-mi-li-o Va-len-ti-no”. The mark would be pronounced “va-len-ti-no ga-ra-va-ni”. As the “V” logos in the respective marks are likely to be recognized as representing the letter “V”, the pronunciations can also be “V E-mi-li-o Va-len-ti-no” and “V va-len-ti-no ga-ra-va-ni”. I find the marks moderately similar aurally. Conceptual comparison 75. The respective “V” logos in the suit mark and the mark correspond to and accentuate the element of “Valentino” in the marks. For the suit mark, “Emilio” is not an English word but the word is likely to be perceived by an average consumer as the name of an individual. The words “valentino garavani” in

- 18 -

the mark would also be perceived by an average consumer as the name of an individual. As such, the meanings conveyed by the marks are both marks constituted by a “V” logo and personal names bearing the word “Valentino”. I find the marks very similar conceptually. 76. Having compared the suit mark and the mark, I consider the overall impression perceived by the average consumer would be that of marks formed by a “V” logo above a personal name consisting of the word “Valentino”. I find the two marks similar.

(B) Comparison with the opponent’s mark

Visual comparison 77. The mark bears the logo of the opponent and the words “VALENTINO COUTURE” written in capital letters and in plain font. The logo appears on the top of the mark. The words “VALENTINO” and “COUTURE” are not placed on the same level. As such, the case used for the words “VALENTINO COUTURE” and the manner in which they appear in the mark are different from the word elements of the suit mark. That said, I consider it unlikely that these would make a great difference to the visual impact, bearing in mind imperfect recollection and that marks are not compared side by side. In my view, the mark would still convey the visual impact of a mark formed by a “V” logo above two words at the bottom. The “V” logos in both marks accentuate the impression conveyed by the distinctive and dominant word “valentino” in both marks. 78. The word “COUTURE” means “high-fashion designing and dressmaking” or the clothes themselves (Collins English Dictionary). The word is thus indistinctive in relation to clothing items. 79. Following from the above, I consider the suit mark moderately similar to the mark visually. Aural comparison 80. Aurally, the mark would be pronounced “VA-LEN-TI-NO” or “VA-LEN-TI-NO COU-TURE” (the word “COUTURE” being indistinctive may not

- 19 -

be included in pronunciation). If the “V” logo would also be pronounced, the respective pronunciations would be “V E-mi-li-o Va-len-ti-no”, and “V VA-LEN-TI-NO” or “V VA-LEN-TI-NO COU-TURE”. I find the marks moderately similar aurally. Conceptual comparison 81. The suit mark conveys the idea of a mark constituted by a “V” logo and the personal name of “Emilio Valentino”. The mark conveys the idea of a mark constituted by a “V” logo plus the name, brand or mark of “VALENTINO”. Like the mark, the presence of the “V” logo accentuates the significance of “Valentino” in the suit mark. I consider the suit mark and mark similar conceptually. 82. Having compared the suit mark and the mark, I consider the overall impression perceived by the average consumer would be that of marks formed by a “V” logo above two words one of which is “Valentino”. I find the two marks moderately similar. (C) Comparison with the opponent’s mark Visual comparison 83. Visually, the mark is a word mark written in capital letters and in plain font. The words “VALENTINO GARAVANI” together take up about two-thirds of the length of the whole mark. In my view, the words “VALENTINO GARAVANI” are likely to dominate the visual impact and attract the attention of the average consumer. The words “R.E.D.”, with the commas after each of the words “R”, “E” and “D”, stand for some abbreviations. I do not consider the average consumer would pay as much attention to the words “R.E.D.” as in the case of “VALENTINO GARAVANI”. 84. Having regard to the presence of the same word “Valentino” in the suit mark and the mark but the difference in presentation and the presence of other elements in the two marks which are not visually similar, I consider the suit mark similar to the mark to a low degree visually.

- 20 -

Aural comparison 85. Aurally, the mark would be pronounced “R-E-D VA-LEN-TI-NO GA-RA-VA-NI” or “RED VA-LEN-TI-NO GA-RA-VA-NI”. Having regard to the presence of the same word “Valentino” in the suit mark and the

mark but the presence of other elements in both marks which are pronounced differently, I find the marks similar to a low degree aurally. Conceptual comparison 86. The words “Emilio Valentino” in the suit mark and “VALENTINO GARAVANI” in the both convey the idea of personal names consisting of the word “Valentino”. In the case of the suit mark, there is the inclusion of the logo which accentuates the significance of the word “Valentino”. I find the marks similar conceptually. 87. I consider that the average consumer would perceive the suit mark as a composite mark constituted by three elements, whilst the mark is a word mark. Both marks consists of personal names especially the same word “Valentino”, but the presentation of the marks overall is not similar. The two marks are in my view similar to a low degree. Comparison of goods 88. The goods for which the suit mark is sought to register are goods under Classes 18 and 25. I would compare the applied for goods with those registered under the 3 opponent’s marks examined above. 89. Goods can be considered as identical when the goods designated by the trade mark application are included in a more general category designated by the earlier mark, or vice versa. (Meric v Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Case T-133/05); Bowerbank’s Application [2008] ETMR 31) 90. In assessing the similarity of the goods concerned, all the relevant factors relating to those goods themselves should be taken into account. Those factors include, inter alia, their nature, their end users, their method of use and whether they are in competition with each other or are complementary. (British Sugar v James

- 21 -

Robertson and Sons Ltd [1996] R.P.C. 281; Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. [1999] R.P.C. 117) 91. I would compare the applied for goods and the goods in Class 18 covered by the opponent’s registrations of the mark (registration number 199404866) and the mark (registration number 300032624). I find that the applicant’s applied for goods shown in the left column below are covered by and fall within the broad terms of the opponent’s goods of the two registrations shown in the right column.

Applicant’s applied for goods in Class 18

Opponent’s goods registered in Class 18

skins (cattle-); skin (goldbeaters'-); gold beaters' skin; cattle skins; curried skins; pelts; animal skins; leather, unworked or semi-worked; butts [parts of kides2]; skins of chamois, other than for cleaning purposes; chamois leather; other than for cleaning purposes;

Goods covered by the & registrations

leather Goods covered by the

registration animal skins, hides

leatherboard; imitation leather; leather (imitation-);

Goods covered by the & registrations

imitations of leather

trimmings of leather for furniture; straps (leather-); tool bags of leather [empty]; boxes of leather or leather board; bands of leather; valves of leather; leather shoulder belts; boxer of leather (hat-); leather thongs; leather leads; leather thread; cases, of leather or leatherboard; leather leashes; leather straps; coverings (furniture-) of leather; leather twist; chin straps, of leather; laces (leather-); leatheroid box; coverings of skins (furs); key cases [leatherware]; belts (leather shoulder-); pouches, of leather, for packaging; bags [envelopes, pouches] of leather, for packaging; envelops, of leather, for packaging; springs (casings, of leather, for plate-); casings, of leather, for springs;

Goods covered by the & registrations

goods made of [leather and imitations of leather] and not included in other classes

2 The meaning of the word “kides” cannot be found from dictionaries. I take that to be the mis-spelt form of “hides”.

- 22 -

bags (net-) for shopping; beach bags; card cases [notecases]; music cases; bags (game-) [hunting accessory]; straps for skates; boxes of vulcanised fibre; purses; pocket wallets; soldier's equipment (straps for-); handbags; frames (handbag-); handles (suitcase-); school satchels; wallets (pocket-); satchels (school-); school bags; suitcases; suitcase handles; varsity cases [not fitted]; sling bags for carrying infants; backpacks; skates (straps for-); wheeled shopping bags; haversacks; canvas box; chain mesh purses, not of precious metal; purses, not of precious metal; briefcases; attache cases; 3

Goods covered by the & registrations

goods made of [leather and imitations of leather] and not included in other classes

travelling bags; valises; bags (garment-) for travel; travelling trunks; travelling sets [leatherware]; garment bags for travel; bags for climbers; bags for campers; trunks [luggage];4

Goods covered by the registration

Trunks and travelling bags

straps of leather [saddlery]; Goods covered by the registration

harness and saddlery

parasols; umbrellas; Goods covered by the registration

umbrellas, parasols 92. The remaining applied for goods of “umbrella sticks; umbrella handles; umbrella rings; covers (umbrella-); umbrella or parasol ribs; frames for umbrellas or parasols” in Class 18 are parts of umbrellas . These goods are intended for use as components of umbrellas or parasols and they can be available at the same trade channels of umbrellas or parasols. The users who look for umbrellas or parasols may also look for these components as replacement parts of umbrellas. As such, I find that “umbrella sticks; umbrella handles; umbrella rings; covers (umbrella-); umbrella or parasol ribs; frames for umbrellas or parasols” are similar to “umbrellas,

3 The goods here are not specified to be but can be made of “leather” or “imitations of leather”. As such, they are covered by “goods made of leather and imitations of leather” and hence identical goods. Even if any of such goods are not made of these materials, they would still be similar goods, for reason of the same methods of use, nature, users, trade channels, and that such goods are in competition with the corresponding goods which are made of leather or imitations of leather. 4 For the goods here not specified to be but can be made of “leather” or “imitations of leather”, they are either identical or similar to “goods made of leather and imitations of leather” of the &

registrations, for the reason stated in footnote 3.

- 23 -

parasols” under the registration referred to above. 93. As to the applied for goods in Class 25, I would compare them with those goods in Class 25 covered by the opponent’s mark (registration number 1996B11046) and mark (registration number 300032624). I find that the applicant’s applied for goods shown in the left column below are covered by and fall within the broad terms of the opponent’s goods of the two registrations shown in the right column.

Applicant’s applied for goods in Class 25

Opponent’s goods registered in Class 25

bath robes; bathing drawers; belts [clothing]; breeches [for wear]; clothing; coats; top coats; garters; girdles; gloves [clothing]; dressing gowns; gymnastics [clothing]; jackets [clothing]; jerseys [clothing]; jumpers [shirt fronts]; knitwear [clothing]; clothing of leather; clothing of imitations of leather; liveries; mittens; neckties; overalls; overcoats; pants; pelisses; pullovers; pyjamas; shirts; singlets; skirts; smocks; sock suspenders; sports jerseys; stuff jackets [clothing]; suits; bathing suits; suspenders; sweat-absorbent underclothing [underwear]; sweaters; swimsuits; tee-shirts; togas; trouser straps; trousers; underclothing; anti-sweat underclothing; underpants; underwear; anti-sweat underwear; uniforms; vests; waistcoats; waterproofing clothing.

Goods covered by the & registrations

Clothing

bath sandals; bath slippers; footwear; galoshes; gymnastic shoes; hosiery; sandals; shoes; slippers; socks; soles for footwear; boots for sports; sports shoes; stockings; 5

Goods covered by the registration

footwear

bathing caps; top hats; Goods covered by the registration

headgear

5“Footwear” encompasses anything that covers the foot, including socks. As footwear such as socks can also be considered as “clothing”, it would, to that extent, overlaps with clothing.

- 24 -

Likelihood of confusion 94. The likelihood of confusion must be appreciated globally, taking account of all relevant factors all of which have a degree of interdependency. The matter must be judged through the eyes of the average consumer of the goods and services who is deemed to be reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. A lesser degree of similarity between the marks may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the goods and services and vice versa. 95. As stated above, there is a greater likelihood of confusion where the earlier trademark has a highly distinctive character, either per se or because of the use that has been made of it. 96. The 3 opponent’s marks are not descriptive of the opponent’s goods concerned and the marks are distinctive per se. 97. I have examined above the evidence filed by the opponent on the use and promotion of the opponent’s marks and goods in Hong Kong. The opponent’s evidence also substantiates the publicity attracted by the name and brand of “Valentino” in Hong Kong. I have in paragraph 56 above concluded that the “VALENTINO” mark or brand and the mark have acquired remarkable reputation and enhanced distinctiveness in Hong Kong in respect of the goods of the opponent. 98. Mr. Chau submitted that the remarkable reputation acquired by the opponent’s marks would increase the likelihood of confusion. He also referred me to the judgment of Deputy High Court Judge Horace Wong S.C. in the Guccio Gucci case (supra) in relation to the allegation made by the plaintiff in that case that the use of the defendant’s “COSIMO GUCCI” mark and the expression “designed by COSIMO GUCCI” in the course of trade or business infringed the plaintiff’s registered mark “GUCCI” under section 18(3) of the Ordinance.6 99. The relevant passages read as follows:

6 An action for infringement under section 18(3) requires determination, inter alia, of whether the use of the alleged infringing marks in relation to the goods concerned is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public.

- 25 -

“92. The fact that the “GUCCI” mark is not descriptive of the nature or function of particular goods enables its distinctiveness to be applied to a broad range of products of very different nature. The mark is capable of being applied not only to goods which it is originally associated with, but also to completely new products and products of new design. So strong is the mark of “GUCCI” that when the same is used in a new product, or a product with a wholly new design, customers will naturally assume that the new product or new design to which the mark is applied originates from Gucci. Such an “extension” of the branding effect may take place both horizontally and vertically—horizontally when the mark is applied to other products of a different nature from those to which the mark originally applies, or vertically when the mark is applied to another line of goods of the same nature but intended to appeal to a different market, for example, a younger line, or a second male or female line. On the evidence before me, such vertical extension is quite common with famous brands—some examples are “RL by RALPH LAUREN”, “POLO by RALPH LAUREN”, “SEE by CHLOE” and “MARC by MARC JACOBS”.

93. That use of a well-known and highly distinctive mark may lead customers to assume that a new product or a new design originates from the same owner or proprietor of the mark, does not cease to apply merely because another word or name also appears in the new product or the new design. The significance of the other word or name depends on the circumstances. Where the other word or name is otherwise unknown as a mark of origin, customers will naturally associate the same with the mark that is well known to them, and will be led to believe that the other name or word is used merely to indicate that the product belongs to a secondary or extension line of the same brand. On the other hand, where the other name or word is itself famous or highly distinctive, customers may assume that the product is related both to that name and the mark—as in the cases of co-branding. …

94. This brings me to the marks “COSIMO GUCCI” and “designed by COSIMO GUCCI”. I have held that when an average customer sees these marks, the word “Cosimo” will not be unnoticed and to someone who understands English, it will be seen as part of a name. However, this does not mean that “Cosimo” has as much distinctive character as the word “Gucci” in the marks concerned. Indeed, as I pointed out

- 26 -

above, “Cosimo Gucci” as a name is unknown in Hong Kong. What is well-known in Hong Kong is the name “Gucci”. When the word “Cosimo” is used together with “Gucci” in a word sign on goods (particularly on goods of the types which are also marketed by the plaintiff), to an average customer who sees such a word sign, the dominant element of the sign is clearly the word “Gucci”. In my view, it is likely that the average customer seeing such a sign would come away thinking that the goods are related to Gucci. When “Cosimo” is unknown and “Gucci” is so widely known, the overall impression of the average customer is likely to be dominated by the leading element of the mark, namely, “Gucci”. Visually, aurally and conceptually, “Gucci” is the dominant element of the sign.

95. When the words “COSIMO GUCCI” are used, either alone or following the words “designed by”, it is likely that the public would take the goods on which the words are used as goods originating from Gucci. …”

100. Mr. Chau submitted that, given the prominence and strong reputation of the element of “Valentino” (viewed against the relatively unknown “Emilio” element in the suit mark), the average customer upon seeing the suit mark would think that the goods supplied under the mark are related to “Valentino”, which is the dominant element of the suit mark visually, aurally and conceptually. 101. Although the applicant claims that the suit mark has been used on the applicant’s goods in Hong Kong, the applicant has not filed any evidence in support of such position. There is no evidence from the applicant to demonstrate that the suit mark has gathered any recognition by the consumers in Hong Kong as the trade mark or brand of the applicant’s applied for goods. 102. I have in the section “Comparison of marks” above considered the similarities and differences between the suit mark and each of the 3 opponent’s marks examined above. I have found similarities between the suit mark and each of these marks which arise as a result of the presence of the element of “Valentino” in these

marks, and the presence of the respective “V” logos in the case of the and marks.

103. The word “Emilio” in the suit mark, albeit conveying the idea that it is part of a personal name, is unknown to the consumers in Hong Kong. There is also

- 27 -

no evidence to show that the logo is known to the consumers in Hong Kong. On the contrary, the “VALENTINO” and the marks have acquired remarkable reputation in Hong Kong in respect of the goods of the opponent. 104. I have found in paragraphs 91 to 93 above that the applied for goods are either identical or similar to the goods respectively registered under the 3 opponent’s marks and compared above. 105. As “Emilio” or “Emilio Valentino” is unknown whilst “VALENTINO” or “Valentino” is so widely known to the public, the overall impression of the average customer is likely to be dominated by the element of “Valentino”. Applying the reasoning in the Guccio Gucci case to the present case, the consumers in Hong Kong are expected to associate “Emilio Valentino” with the “VALENTINO” mark that is well known to them, and will be led to believe that the word “Emilio” is used merely to indicate that the goods concerned belongs to a secondary or extension line of the “VALENTINO” brand. The logo, which corresponds to the first letter “V” of “Valentino” in the suit mark, would not reduce the association with the opponent’s “VALENTINO” mark or brand. 106. I come to the view that when the suit mark is used in relation to the goods applied for, there is the risk that the public might believe that the goods provided under the suit mark and those provided under the 3 opponent’s marks come from the same or economically-linked undertakings, and such risk constitutes a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of section 12(3). 107. The ground of opposition under section 12(3) of the Ordinance is therefore made out. Other grounds of opposition 108. As I have found in favour of the opponent on the ground under section 12(3) of the Ordinance, it is not necessary for me to consider the other grounds based on sections 11(5)(b), 12(4) and 12(5)(a) of the Ordinance. Costs 109. As the opposition has succeeded, I award the opponent costs. Subject to any representations as to the amount of costs or calling for special treatment, which

- 28 -

either party makes within one month from the date of this decision, costs will be calculated with reference to the usual scale in Part I of the First Schedule to Order 62 of the Rules of the High Count (Cap. 4A) as applied to trade mark matters, unless otherwise agreed between the parties.

(Miss Joyce Poon) for Registrar of Trade Marks

7 June 2013

- 29 -

Appendix

Trade Mark No. Date of Registration

Class Goods/Services

1959B0853

6 May 1959 25 shirts

1993B05009

27 December 1989

25 clothing, footwear, headgear

1994B01363AA

13 January 1986 18 and 25 Class 18 purses, handbags, wallets Class 25 outer clothing for men and women

199402105

23 February 1989

25 clothing for women

199404866

13 September 1991

18 leather and imitations of leather and goods made of these materials and not included in other classes

1996B11046

1 October 1992 25 clothing

2003B11999

26 June 2000 25 umbrellas

2003B12000

26 June 2000 25 articles of clothing, but not including gloves and footwear; all included in Class 25

2003B12001

26 June 2000 35 advertising; business management; business administration; retail services in the fields of bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use, cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations; soaps; perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions;

- 30 -

dentifrices; electric, photographic, cinematographic, optical and teaching apparatus and instruments, apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; magnetic data carriers, recording discs, automatic vending machines and mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus, cash registers, calculating machines, data processing equipment and computers, fire-extinguishing apparatus, precious metals and their alloys and goods in precious metals or coated therewith, not included in other classes, jewellery, precious stones, horological and chronometric instruments; umbrellas; articles of clothing, excluding gloves and footwear; all included in Class 35

300029303

6 June 2003 3, 9, 14 and 25

Class 3 soaps, perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions, dentifrices Class 9 scientific, nautical, surveying, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signalling, checking (supervision), life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments; apparatus and instruments for recording, switching, transforming, accumulating, regulating or controlling electricity; apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; magnetic data carriers, recording discs; automatic vending machines and mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus; cash registers, calculating machines, data processing equipment and computers; fire-extinguishing apparatus; computer operating recorded programs Class 14 precious metals and their alloys and goods in precious metals or coated therewith, not included in other classes; jewellery, precious stones; horological and chronometric instruments Class 25 clothing, excluding footwear, belts and gloves

- 31 -

300032624

16 June 2003 18 and 25 Class 18 leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of these materials and not included in other classes; animal skins, hides; trunks and travelling bags; umbrellas, parasols and walking sticks; whips, harness and saddlery Class 25 clothing, footwear, headgear