“Breitling for women”: Breitling takes action

Breitling has been an established name in the world of luxury watches for decades.

The Swiss brand is known for its high-quality products, where precision and aesthetics go hand in hand. Through long-standing and intensive use, Breitling has built a strong reputation both within and beyond Europe. That reputation played a central role in a recent case concerning the trademark “Breitling for women.”

A Hungarian company had registered this mark for cosmetics and perfumes. Breitling opposed this and filed a cancellation action against the mark. Not - contrary to what one might expect - on the basis of the broader protection of the BREITLING trademark, but on the ground that the application had been made in bad faith by the Hungarian party.

Both the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal ruled in Breitling’s favor: the application had indeed been filed in bad faith. The trademark was declared invalid, despite covering goods different from watches.

The legal core of the decision lies in the concept of bad faith. This involves assessing the applicant’s intention at the time of filing. It was up to Breitling to demonstrate bad faith on the part of the applicant, which it did primarily by establishing the strong reputation of the Breitling brand. The Board of Appeal considered it plausible that the applicant was aware - or should have been aware - of the Breitling trademark, given its strong reputation. Crucially, however, it was the applicant’s own behavior that proved decisive: the Hungarian party had previously filed multiple applications for well-known brands, often with additions such as “for women” or “for men.” This pointed to a strategy aimed at riding on the coattails of existing brands rather than building an independent one.

A notable strategy by Breitling. Would it not have been easier to rely on the broader protection of its trademark? Once it became clear that the Hungarian party had filed multiple applications for well-known marks, it made sense to incorporate that pattern into the proceedings. This made a cancellation action based on bad faith more likely to succeed. And rightly so, as it turned out: the result is a clear victory. At the same time, this case serves as a strong warning: keep your hands off well-known trademarks.

Author: Arnaud Bos

Bio: Arnaud is trademark attorney and within Knijff responsible for the marketing & communication. Arnaud is specialist in the metaverse and music sectors and his client portfolio includes many upcoming and renowned bands. He keeps a close eye on the latest case law in the EU and will let you know when he sees remarkable applications.