UK NEWS

RAF brand fails to take off

The Royal Air Force’s “Roundel” - the familiar red, white and blue concentric circles device - was used originally during the First World War to identify our aircraft and stop them coming under “friendly fire”. In a belated attempt at protecting the Roundel, the Ministry of Defence recently applied to register it (UK 2189121A) as a trade mark for clothing in the UK. This was opposed by Arcadia Group, which includes clothing outlets such as Top Shop and Burtons.

Arcadia claimed that the Roundel had fallen into common use in the clothing industry and argued that it had thus passed into the public domain. They contended that this all started in the swinging 60’s when the Roundel was adopted as a fashion icon and symbol of “Mod” culture (that is, Mod as in “Mods v. Rockers”, rather than MoD meaning Ministry of Defence), as exemplified in the Who’s film Quadrophenia. They explained that the fashion was currently enjoying something of a revival, through “retro-style” brands such as Lambretta and Merc.

The MoD countered by saying that the Roundel still stood for them and symbolised their reputation for reliability, adding that to be able to license use of the Roundel on clothing would be of benefit to taxpayers.

In the ensuing dog fight, the MoD were shot down. The Registry were convinced by Arcadia’s evidence and held that the Roundel was no longer capable of being seen by the public as an indicator of origin. An offer by the MoD to limit their application to clothing “relating to the RAF” found no sympathy with the Hearing Officer.

The Hearing Officer dismissed the opposition based on the UK mark on the basis that Met Office is not confusingly similar to the Mets logo. He also rejected the passing off ground for similar reasons, having found that the only mark in which the Met Office could claim a demonstrable reputation was Met Office.

In considering the Met Office’s mark Met, the Hearing Officer noted that unlike Mets, Met is a word with a normal meaning (“encountered”), it is a well recognised abbreviation (for “meteorological” or “metropolitan”) and it has no plural or possessive form. He further noted the stylisation of the Mets logo, though he considered this to be “very slight”. Having made all of these points, the Examiner then somewhat surprisingly concluded that consumers would (emphasis added) be likely to confuse the two marks.

The Mets have won something of a reprieve, however, because the Hearing Officer made his decision conditional upon the Met Office’s CTM proceeding to registration. As it happens, the Met Office’s CTM application is itself under opposition…by MLB Properties! The opposition is based on an earlier CTM registration of the word Mets. It seems that all should work out well in the end for MLB Properties, if OHIM find the marks Met and Mets confusingly similar, which seems likely, and providing they can show use of the Mets logo in Europe. If not… loyal Mets fans can hardly bear to watch.