Cases involving trademark infringement and unfair competition are sometimes handled on an expedited basis, through summary proceedings, primarily to obtain injunctions prohibiting the sale of goods. In this instance, the plaintiff’s claim was denied because the infringement was not sufficiently evident or plausible.
A company incorporated under English law, which owns the EU word mark “Walk of no shame”—registered for various cosmetics and used in the European Union by two companies known as Charlotte Tilbury—is suing Glowery in an action for a preliminary injunction.
They accuse Glowery of trademark infringement and unfair competition for using the sign “No walk of shame” in the promotion and marketing of a moisturizer.
The presiding judge, ruling in summary proceedings, dismisses all claims.
➡️ Reminder of the principle: the likelihood of infringement is assessed based, on the one hand, on the apparent validity of the right asserted and, on the other hand, on the likelihood of the alleged infringement.
➡️ Regarding the apparent validity of the title: “Walk of shame” is an English idiom, and “Walk of no shame” is a play on words based on it. Its meaning is not immediately apparent and requires some interpretation on the part of consumers, so the mark appears to be distinctive, albeit to a limited extent. The title in question therefore appears to be valid.
➡️ Regarding the likelihood of confusion: the products in question (makeup and moisturizer) are similar because they target the same …
