PAW PATROL vs PAW PALS: Spin Master protects its pups

Canadian toy and entertainment company Spin Master Ltd. has long been the proud owner of the world-famous children’s franchise PAW Patrol.

Since its launch in 2013, the brand has grown into a true merchandising powerhouse, with more than 100,000 products worldwide—from toys and clothing to books, apps and even snacks.

The PAW PATROL trademark is firmly anchored in the trademark register, with registrations covering, among other things, toys, clothing, printed matter, and game software. Spin Master actively protects its brand portfolio, as demonstrated by a recent opposition case against the trademark ‘PAW PALS,’ filed by a Bulgarian party.

The application concerned a figurative mark featuring cartoon-like elements such as dogs, clouds, and flowers, combined with the word element PAW PALS. Spin Master opposed the application, citing its earlier word mark PAW PATROL.

Although the graphic elements in the applied-for mark were striking, the Opposition Division of the EUIPO emphasized that verbal elements carry more weight when determining the association of origin. And for good reason. ‘PAW’ and the structure ‘PAW PA’ appear in both marks. Visually, the signs share the same initial syllables; aurally, the sounds are highly similar. Conceptually, both marks refer to the theme of ‘animals’ and ‘companionship,’ a combination that, especially in the context of children’s toys, easily leads to confusion.

The addition of ‘PALS’ (friends) instead of ‘PATROL’ and the extra figurative elements in the applied-for mark were not sufficient to make a clear distinction. The goods for which the trademark was applied—including toys—are identical or at least highly similar to those of Spin Master.

The conclusion: consumers could easily assume that PAW PALS is a sub-brand or derivative of PAW PATROL. The Opposition Division sided with Spin Master. Given the medium to high degree of visual, aural and conceptual similarity, a genuine likelihood of confusion was established for the identical and similar goods for which the trademark was applied. The opposition was therefore partially upheld (for the identical and similar goods).

This case once again underscores the importance of considering existing, powerful brands in the same sector when choosing a new trademark. Such distinctiveness or reputation can also reside in only part of an earlier mark. Especially in industries like children’s toys, where consumers are accustomed to brand extensions or variations, confusion can easily arise: consumers may view the new mark as a sub-brand or assume the existence of some other form of commercial link between the marks.

Author: Erwin Haüer

Bio: Erwin is a trademark attorney and, as the managing partner, in charge of IT and Information Management. He works extensively with startups and scale-ups, while his clientele also includes numerous multinational corporations. Erwin possesses a sharp wit and a keen eye for remarkable trademark news and curious brand infringements.