CROCODILE TEARS OR TEETH?

Cartoon image of crocodile

Owners of the iconic brand Lacoste recently took action against a Cheltenham dental practice who registered their trade mark for dentistry services under Class 44. Lacoste had taken exception under the Trade Marks Act of 1994 and sections which concern crocodile devices. The hearing office dismissed the opposition in May 2007 and Lacoste appealed and lost. Costs of £1450 were awarded to the Dental Practice of Cheltenham.

ACID COMMENT: It would appear that there has to be a sensible approach when challenges are made by trade mark owners, especially clothing giants like Lacoste. Would the average consumer planning to go and buy a polo shirt be confused and go to the Chelthenham Dental Practice by mistake? We rather think not! ACID understands that a trade mark or badge of origin is used to determine or distinguish the goods and services of one brand owner from those of other or have we got it wrong?

Comments are closed.