Trade Marks - what is bad faith?
In any legal dispute, the term ‘bad faith’ is often banded about in response to all sorts of behaviour that those on one side of the argument disagree with. However, in UK trade mark proceedings, the term plays a specific role. As the recent judgment in Swatch v Apple[1] demonstrates, the existence of bad faith can be difficult to prove, and must be based on the evidence of the applicant’s intentions, judged against certain norms.
The Law
Under s.3(6) Trade Marks Act 1994 a trade mark shall not be registered if or to the extent that application is made in bad faith.
A bad faith objection still does not have a straight forward definition. But it is important to note that (contrary to popular opinion) it is not bad faith to simply apply for a trade mark that is similar to someone else’s (even if you know it is similar), there must be some further act or intention on the part of the applicant. Such act or intention must fall short of the standards of acceptable commercial behaviour observed by reasonable and experienced people in the particular sphere in question.
Apple v Swatch
This case concerned Swatch’s application for the trade mark ONE MORE THING, which was famously used by Apple’s Steve Jobs when launching new Apple products. Apple don’t have any registered protection for the mark, they don’t even use it as a brand, but consider it to be synonymous with their brand and products. They were naturally concerned to see this application from Swatch, covering a wide range of consumer electrical products, as well as watches.
At first instance, the UKIPO decided that Apple did not have sufficient goodwill in the phrase to prevent the application under its own passing off rights. Apple did not appeal this.
Therefore, the case really came down to Apple’s second line of argument; that the application had been made in bad faith. The arguments put forward by Apple were that Swatch intended to use the registration to damage Apple by (1) parodying the mark (2) diverting trade from Apple, and/or (3) taking unfair advantage of Apple’s reputation. The first ground was particularly interesting as there is no previous reported case of a trade mark application being assessed under this objection.
The Judge found, having considered the evidence, that there was no bad faith here. The simple fact that Swatch may have been motivated by a desire to annoy Apple is not be sufficient to amount to bad faith. Annoyance of a business is not a concept which is capable of objective analysis.
Further, parody is not, in itself, a form of bad faith. It covers a multitude of possibilities from gentle and affectionate teasing to full-frontal attacks. It is not an inherently dishonest business practice to use a sign which brings another trader to the mind of some consumers in an amusing but inoffensive way. Such an activity would not necessarily undermine the interests of the third party in any material way. The point at which parodic or humorous activity of that kind would transgress the boundaries of honest business practices will depend on the nature of the humour, the intensity of its use and its consequent impact on the business interests of the recipient. There was no evidence that Swatch intended to cross this line, in this instance.
What does this all mean?
In short, this decision changes nothing but there are a few key points of interest:
- The case that a trade mark application has been made in bad faith is incredibly difficult to run, and evidence is key. It you don’t have clear, objective evidence that the applicant’s intentions fall short of the standards of acceptable commercial behaviour, you are unlikely to succeed. The standard of proof is very high.
- As any brand lawyer will tell you, if you consider something to be part of your brand, you should consider obtaining registered protection for it. If Apple had had their own trade mark for ONE MORE THING, they would most likely have been able to prevent the Swatch application.
- This is the first time that we have judicial commentary on whether parody (or parodic intent) can amount to bad faith. It is perhaps not surprising to hear that an intent to parody a business or brand is not in itself a ground of bad faith, but that it could be if it transgresses the boundaries of acceptable commercial behaviour.
- Remember that the strongest grounds of bad faith usually involve the scenario in which the applicant has no intention to use the mark. Grounds such as diversion of trade, exploitation of reputation and parody can all be grounds of bad faith, but all of which show an intention on the applicant to actually use the mark, so are less likely to constitute bad faith.
- One cautionary tale, check your grounds. Apple’s counsel at the initial hearing tried to rely on the ground of ‘blocking’ (i.e. that Swatch did not intend to use the mark at all, but only wanted it to block Apple from using it). This may have been a much more solid basis for bad faith, but it wasn’t pleaded in the Notice of Opposition and so could not be considered further by the hearing officer.
- Third party evidence, normally a paragon in trade mark cases, is unlikely to be relevant in bad faith cases. In this instance, commentary in articles by unrelated parties (even evidence describing the application as an ‘epic troll move’) is not evidence of the intention of the applicant.
[1] Swatch AG v Apple Inc [2021] EWHC 719 (Ch) (29 March 2021)
Our thinking
Natalie Batra
ITV takes the plunge and “couples up” with Ebay to dress love island contestants in pre-loved clothing
Grégoire Uldry
New Swiss succession law on the transfer of businesses
On 10 June 2022, the Federal Council adopted its Message amending the Civil Code on the transfer of businesses by succession.
Louise Paterson
Artnet quotes Louise Paterson on the Ivory Act
UK’s Ivory Act comes into force
Pei Li Kew
Pei Li Kew writes for Pharmacy Business on the link between pharmacy and IP
Pei Li Kew writes for Pharmacy Business on the link between pharmacy and IP
Jonathan McDonald
Jonathan McDonald provides comment for City AM on the Data Reform Bill announced in the Queen's Speech
Jonathan McDonald provides comment for City AM on the Data Reform Bill announced in the Queen's Speech
Nick White
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Symphony Holdings Limited on the sale of its PONY trade mark portfolio for USD $28 million
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Symphony Holdings Limited on the sale of its PONY trade mark portfolio for USD $28 million.
Simon Ridpath
Simon Ridpath featured in the Lawyer’s Hot 100 list
Simon Ridpath features in The Lawyer’s Hot 100 list
Natalie Batra
Patents and Peppa Pig: What is happening to intellectual property rights in Russia?
Certain Russian individuals and businesses can now use patents, utility models and industrial designs without obtaining prior permission.
Simon Green
International Bar Association quotes Simon Green on the future of the legal sector in Hong Kong
International Bar Association quote Simon Green on the future of Hong Kong's legal sector
Charlotte Duly
Charlotte Duly quoted in Retail Gazette on House of Zana trademark dispute
Charlotte Duly quoted in Retail Gazette on House of Zana trademark dispute
Caroline Greenwell
Nowhere to hide for greenwashing brands
In the UK, regulators are cracking down, with many companies now at risk of financial and other penalties.
Jamie Cartwright
Weighing up the Plastic Packaging Tax
The Plastic Packaging Tax came into force on 1 April 2022.
Jamie Cartwright
Crunching numbers - Mandatory calorie laws come into force
The Calorie Labelling (Out of Home Sector) (England) Regulations 2021 (the Regulations) are now in force.
Jody MacDonald
Liverpool FC’s Hero Club and the current state of play with football NFTs
Liverpool’s Hero Club hit the headlines this week and serves as an interesting reflection of the current state of play.
Rachel Bell
Rachel Bell commented in IT Pro on the implications of the proposed EU’s Digital Markets Act
The proposed EU’s Digital Markets Act is set to require larger messaging platforms to interoperate with their smaller rivals.
Quentin de la Bastide
Constructing a Blue-print for Electronic Execution – New Guidance from the Industry Working Group on the Electronic Execution of Documents
Sonia Kenawy
Claimant ordered to pay security for costs in cryptocurrency dispute and digital assets rejected as form of security
Proceedings that are sure to be watched closely by the cryptocurrency community as well as legal practitioners.
Stewart Hey
Freezing Orders: Policing the Nuclear Option (PT 2)
Looking at the impact these checks and balances have when it comes to drafting and construing the terms of the order.
Stewart Hey
Freezing Orders: Policing the Nuclear Option
This article considered some of the checks and balances that apply when seeking access to one of the law’s most potent weapons.
Mark Hill
UAE Labour Law Update – The five big changes to note…
Federal Decree Law No. 33 of 2021 - The five big changes to note