Organisation: The Swatch Group

It is unlikely that intermediary service providers who are actively involved in testing, reviewing and controlling the products offered on their platforms will be able to rely on the Article 14 defence.

02 February 2024

Featured in WTR Special Report Q3 2023: Safeguarding style: an examination of brand protection in the fashion and luxury industry

04 October 2023

With its origins in Instagram, Swedish watch company Daniel Wellington is no stranger to online counterfeit issues. The IP team’s core activity lies in enforcement, working both offline and online to purge fake goods.

05 July 2019

In <I>The Smiley Company v OHIM</I>, the General Court has upheld an OHIM decision finding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the mark HAPPY TIME and Swatch Group’s earlier mark HAPPY HOURS. Among other things, the court held that an earlier CTM can be relied on in opposition proceedings against any CTM application which would adversely affect the protection of the first mark, even if only in relation to the perception of consumers in part of the Community.

23 July 2015

In <I>In re The Swatch Group Management Services AG</I>, in a precedential opinion, the TTAB has affirmed, on the ground of mere descriptiveness, a refusal to register Swatch’s mark TOURBILLON (and design) for “jewellery, horological and chronometric instruments” in Class 14. Among other things, the TTAB rejected Swatch’s argument that the watch industry does not consider watches as ‘jewellery’.

07 May 2014