Trade Marks Registry Rejects Registration Of 'BOSSBABE' Trade Mark Over Similarity To Hugo Boss' Mark

The Trade Marks Registry, Ahmedabad, has refused registration of the mark "BOSSBABE" for cosmetics and skin care products. It allowed an opposition filed by Coty Beauty Germany GmbH, the exclusive global licensee for HUGO BOSS fragrance products under Class 3.

Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks Rama Devi Verma held that the applicant's mark was dominated by the word "BOSS", which is identical to the opponent's registered mark.

The Registrar observed that the addition of the word "BABE" does "not independently distinguish the impugned mark, nor does it create a new and distinct identity sufficient to negate the deceptive similarity."

The application for "BOSSBABE" was filed by Tanisha Sheth on a proposed-to-be-used basis on December 9, 2021. It covered a range of cosmetics, skin care and personal care products under Class 3 and was advertised before acceptance in the Trade Marks Journal on December 20, 2021.

Coty Beauty Germany GmbH opposed the application on January 28, 2022. It relied on its exclusive fragrance licensing agreement with Hugo Boss Trade Mark Management GmbH & Co. and its registrations for BOSS, HUGO BOSS and related marks in India, including registrations dating back several decades.

The Registrar held that the rival marks could not be treated as different. It noted that the first four letters of BOSSBABE, "BOSS", were wholly and identically reproduced from the opponent's registered mark.

The Registrar further observed that "it is well settled that when a dominant part of a mark is identical to a registered mark, the mere addition of a descriptive or non-distinctive suffix does not make it distinct."

The order also noted that the applicant had failed to file any evidence supporting its claim of use or adoption. It recorded that "till date not a single invoice nor any other supporting documents has been produced by the applicant."

The Registrar held that unproved averments in the counter statement "cannot be accorded evidentiary weight against the positive documentary evidence placed by the Opponent."

Holding that the adoption of BOSSBABE did not appear to be "an honest or bona fide adoption in the absence of any credible explanation" for adopting BOSS as its dominant component, the Registrar concluded that the mark was likely to cause confusion. Consumers could be led to believe that the applicant's goods were "associated with, sponsored by, or connected to" the opponent.

The Registrar refused registration of the mark and allowed the opposition. There was no order as to costs.