• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patentanwaltskanzlei

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Toronto Wildfox T-Shirt: H&M accused of trademark infringement

16. November 2017

Again copying of brand design? The Swedish fashion chain H&M is facing another lawsuit for imitation of a brand design. This time the focus is on the popular Toronto Wildfox T-Shirt. H&M was sued by Wildfox last week.

WildfuchsThe American fashion company Wildfox Couture filed a lawsuit against H&M last week in the Central District of California for trademark infringement and unfair competition (2:17-cv-08115). The plaintiff accuses the well-known Swedish manufacturer of  Fast Fashion of having used the name Wildfox on a number of T-shirts, sweatshirts and long-sleeved shirts. This also applies to the popular Toronto Wildfox T-Shirt. However, the name Wildfox is protected by a patent at the US Patent Office (USPTO), says Wildfox Couture. The company is now seeking compensation of at least $2 million and is demanding payment of the profits from the sale of Wildfox products.

Wildfox couture was founded in 2007 and is sold at Nordstrom, Shopbop and Revolve. The brand is known for its vintage-style design. Last year, H&M again created a design for outerwear that was named “Toronto Wildfox” in allusion to a fictitious Canadian baseball team. For H&M, another accusation by an American company is one within a short period of time. In the case of H&M versus DJDuo, which we reported on, the Schwedish were also sued for trademark infringement.

Public perception is decisive

H&M claims that the word Wildfox was only used in Toronto Wildfox T-shirts and sweatshirts in a “decorative way”. And refers to the assumption that a typical customer and buyer would never associate the the design developed by H&M with the design of the Wildfox fashion line nor be confused. This will be a crucial point in the decision. There is a likelihood of confusion if the public considers that the goods or services in question come from the same undertaking. This has to be assessed globally, and the opinion of the relevant public is decisive here. It is taken into account that the average consumer rarely has the opportunity to compare the different brands directly with each other. In earlier judgments, the pictorial, phonetic and conceptual aspects were considered relevant to the likelihood of confusion. The judement is awaited with suspense.

 

You want national or international protection for your trademark?

Our lawyers advise you individually and together with you develop the right strategy to protect your trademark.

CAT-call_en

 

Source:

Text: Business news / 11/2017

pictures: Alexa’s_Fotos /pixabay.com / CCO License  

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconProduct- and Trademark piracy,  Trademark Law Tag iconH&M,  Trademark,  Wildfox

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Product- and Trademark piracy

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

3. June 2024
What is the public allowed to know?

What is the public allowed to know?

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

25. February 2022
CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

24. February 2022
EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

21. February 2022
CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

15. February 2022
SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.