EU Regulator Rejects Chinese Tech Firm’s ‘Bosspowerl’ Trademark At Behest Of Hugo Boss

EU Regulator Rejects Chinese Tech Firm’s ‘Bosspowerl’ Trademark At Behest Of Hugo Boss

The luxury fashion house provided evidence that some goods in Class 9 were complementary to the industry

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has rejected a trademark application from a Chinese electronics firm for the figurative mark Bosspowerl. It observed that the company was free-riding on the reputation of the earlier marks of luxury fashion house Hugo Boss.

In 2023, the Guangdong-based company Dongguan Dongpai Digital Technology filed a trademark application for the contested figurative mark under Class 9 for mobile phone chargers and other technology accessories.

Hugo Boss, represented by the Dennemeyer Group in Luxembourg, had initiated the proceedings based on earlier Hugo Boss EU Trade Marks (EUTM) registrations for the mark ‘Boss’.

The EUIPO noted that the earlier trademark enjoyed a high reputation in the EU for men’s and women’s clothing in Class 25, and thus enjoyed stronger protection.

Hugo Boss accused the Chinese company of taking unfair advantage of its marks’ reputation. It stated, “The average customer would assume that the ‘Bosspowerl’ figurative mark is a mark within the broader family of ‘Boss’ marks.”

The EUIPO observed the argument of the fashion house ‘persuasive’ and ruled, “There is a probability that the use without due cause of the contested sign for the contested goods may acquire some unearned benefit and lead to free riding. It would take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trademark.”

The regulator added, “Visually and aurally, the signs coincide in the distinctive component ‘Boss’ and its sound. They differ in the weak at best component ‘Power’ and the not particularly distinctive letter ‘L’ (and their sound). The signs also differ in style. Therefore, the signs are visually and aurally similar at least to an average degree.”

The goods that the contested trademark hoped to cover included Class 9 items like apparatus and instruments for accumulating, generating and storing electricity, communication equipment and audio transmitting devices.

Hugo Boss provided evidence that some goods in Class 9 were complementary to the fashion industry.

The luxury fashion house said, “There is a growing demand for fashionable tech accessories. Batteries, chargers and other energy products are essential for powering these devices. Therefore, fashion companies cater to this demand and provide consumers with functional, yet stylish electronic devices and accessories.”

Agreeing with Hugo Boss, the EUIPO stated, “It is frequent for fashion designers to offer merchandise and other gadgets designed with their trademarks because, as the evidence provided by Hugo Boss claims - technology is reshaping the fashion industry.”

The court ruled, “In light of the overlap of the relevant public, considering the similarity of the signs and the high degree of recognition proven by the earlier mark, a link with these goods cannot be excluded.”

Dongguan Dongpai Digital Technology was represented by Vilnus-based IP firm Metida.