Key Takeaways
- The Rospatent Chamber concluded that the designations "FLOSSY LIFE" and "FLOSSY STYLE" are similar to the extent of confusion based on phonetic, visual, and semantic similarity.
- The element "FLOSSY" was identified as the dominant and distinctive element in both marks, while "STYLE" was deemed non-distinctive and therefore excluded from legal protection.
- Goods in Class 25 (clothing, footwear, headgear) were held to be highly similar and aimed at the same consumer groups through identical distribution channels.
- Only one item in Class 24 ("textile sew-on labels for clothing") was considered similar to goods in Class 25; all other textile goods in Class 24 were deemed non-similar.
- Evidence of reputation and commercial presence of "SOVENCA" in Russia was found insufficient to support an argument of deceptiveness under Article 1483(3) of the Civil Code.
Legal Analysis
The Rospatent Chamber for Patent Disputes conducted an administrative review of an opposition filed by SOVENCA, S.L. against the grant of legal protection to the trademark "FLOSSY LIFE" (Certificate No. 1086847). The legal assessment was performed pursuant to Article 1483 of Part IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, together with the applicable procedural rules governing the filing and examination of trademark applications.
2.1. Assessment of Deceptiveness (Article 1483(3) CC RF)
The Chamber emphasized that a finding of deceptiveness requires objective evidence demonstrating that consumers associate the contested designation with a different manufacturer on the basis of an established market reputation.
Materials provided by the opponent - screenshots from online marketplaces, non-translated invoices, and general information on distribution - were deemed insufficient to establish consumer recognition or market penetration of "FLOSSY STYLE" in the Russian Federation.
No market surveys, sales statistics, or evidence confirming a stable associative link were filed. Consequently, the Chamber found no grounds to consider "FLOSSY LIFE" misleading.
2.2. Assessment of Similarity to the Extent of Confusion (Article 1483(6) CC RF)
The decisive factor in the similarity assessment was the dominance of the element "FLOSSY" in both designations. The additional elements "LIFE" and "STYLE" were not capable of altering the overall impression of similarity, particularly as "STYLE" was regarded as descriptive and non-distinctive.
Applying the criteria established in Points 41-45 of the Rules (phonetic, visual, and conceptual similarity), the Chamber concluded that the designations are similar to the extent of confusion, forming a comparable semantic and perceptual structure for consumers.
2.3. Similarity of Goods
Goods covered by the contested mark in Class 25 (clothing, footwear, headgear) were found to be highly similar to the goods covered by the earlier mark. The Chamber noted an overlap in functional purpose, consumer groups, and sales channels (retail stores, online marketplaces).
Within Class 24, only textile sew-on labels for clothing were recognized as related to goods in Class 25 as accessory products attached to apparel.
Other textile articles (fabrics, bedding, decor textiles) were deemed unrelated, considering differences in purpose, consumer demand, distribution channels, and market perception.
2.4. Conclusion
In view of the similarity of the marks and the similarity of goods in Class 25 (and partially Class 24), the Chamber held that the contested trademark does not comply with Article 1483(6) of the Civil Code. The registration was therefore declared invalid in respect of all goods in Class 25 and "sew-on textile labels for clothing" in Class 24.
Commentary by Patent Attorney A. V. Leonov
From a practical standpoint, the reviewed decision confirms the established position of the Federal Service for Intellectual Property (Rospatent): in disputes concerning trademark confusion, the dominant element of the mark remains the decisive factor. In this case, the presence of the identical verbal element "FLOSSY" determined the outcome of the case, despite the applicant's arguments regarding differences in the second word ("LIFE" / "STYLE").
Risks for Rights Holders
For owners of new brands, the risk lies in the fact that any designation containing a dominant element identical to an earlier mark may be considered confusingly similar, even if the full phrase differs. This is particularly critical in mass-market segments (clothing, footwear), where consumer perception develops rapidly and attention levels are low.
Risks for Parties Filing Oppositions
It is noteworthy that arguments concerning the misleading nature of the designation were not upheld due to the absence of evidence of notoriety. In practice, a common error is to cite marketplace presence without substantiating actual sales and recognition through research-based materials.
Recommendations for Clients
- When developing a new brand in Classes 24-25 of the Nice Classification, avoid using elements that are already established in the market and constitute strong components of third-party marks.
- When filing oppositions under clause 3 of Article 1483 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, prepare a comprehensive evidentiary package: sales statistics, advertising campaigns, reports from research agencies, and market share data.
- Owners of international registrations should monitor national applications containing identical core elements.
Prospects for Disputes of This Category
Practice demonstrates that Rospatent consistently protects dominant trademark elements, and the likelihood of invalidation is high when phonetic and visual identity exists. At the same time, arguments regarding the heterogeneity of secondary goods rarely affect the overall outcome if similarity is established in at least one key class.
Related Materials
More IPPRO analysis on similarity tests and invalidation standards in Rospatent practice: