Bentley Motors Faces Defeat in Trademark Dispute with Bentley Clothing Company
In a surprising turn of events, Bentley Motors, the renowned luxury car manufacturer, has found itself in a legal battle over the trademark of its name, specifically in the realm of fashion. This unusual case, which does not involve tech giants like Google, Facebook, Messenger, Twitter, Pinterest, LinkedIn, WhatsApp, or Email, has shed light on the importance of active use of trademarks and the potential consequences of inactivity.
The Supreme Court recently declined to review a legal challenge that questioned the protection of the term "google" by trademark, but the Bentley case has a different narrative. George W. Salthouse, the UK IPO trademark hearing officer, ruled that Bentley Motors failed to provide any evidence of use of the "Bentley" name in connection with garments and the sale of garments. This decision paved the way for the Manchester-based Bentley Clothing company, with less than 10 employees, to register the "Bentley" trademark with the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office ("UK IPO") for clothing and retail services.
The UK IPO allowed Bentley Clothing to use the mark "Bentley" for clothing, as Bentley Motors does not have a significant reputation as a clothing manufacturer. This decision echoes other notable cases where large companies have lost trademark rights due to lack of use or related issues. For instance, the Bentley Clothing vs. Bentley Motors case resembles the former's establishment of prior or more consistent use in the clothing category, resulting in Bentley Motors losing rights over a trademark in that category.
Similar cases often involve local challengers successfully defeating global brands on use or registration grounds, particularly in foreign markets. Examples include Ferrari losing a trademark battle against a local Malaysian energy drink company and a company losing trademark rights over the Superman mark against a Malaysian energy drink company. While these cases do not directly involve Bentley Motors, they underscore the importance of active use in maintaining trademark protection.
Interestingly, Google Inc. has filed a cybersquatting lawsuit against Chris Gillespie, who registered 763 domain names that included the word "google." Bentley Motors objected to this registration, as it had registered the "Bentley" mark for a variety of goods, including bags and jewelry. However, this case does not seem to be directly related to the Bentley Clothing vs. Bentley Motors case.
In a separate but equally intriguing development, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has allowed the registration of the trademark FUCT for a clothing brand, despite it being considered immoral or scandalous due to its resemblance to a vulgar verb. This decision further underscores the complexities and nuances involved in trademark law.
Lastly, it's worth mentioning historical cases outside the current search results, such as Abercrombie & Fitch losing rights to "Safari" for clothes due to non-use, and Burger King losing a trademark in Australia for a chain that used the same name earlier. These cases underscore the importance of active use in maintaining trademark protection.
In summary, the Bentley case serves as a prominent illustration of how trademark rights depend on active use, and similar examples often involve local challengers successfully defeating global brands on use or registration grounds, particularly in foreign markets. The complexities of trademark law are further highlighted by cases like FUCT's registration and the Adidas vs. church case, where details are not provided in the given paragraph. These developments underscore the need for companies to actively protect their trademarks to avoid potential legal challenges and loss of rights.
- Despite the recent Supreme Court decision not reviewing the protection of the term "google" by trademark, cases like Bentley Clothing vs. Bentley Motors serve as a reminder of the importance of active use in maintaining trademark rights.
- The decision to allow Bentley Clothing to use the mark "Bentley" for clothing, and many other similar cases, highlight the potential consequences of inactivity in using a trademark, as large companies may lose rights over a trademark in specific categories.
