October 2005
Aromacology: The not-so-sweet-smelling Trade Mark Dispute
Daniele Ryman Aromacology Limited had applied in 1999 for a UK trade mark in the word "Aromacology". This mark became registered in October 2001 in class 3 for cosmetics products.
Chantecaille Beaute Inc objected to the monopoly rights in the word "Aromacolgy" enjoyed by DR as a result of its registered trade mark and applied for a declaration of invalidity of the registration in 2004 on the grounds that the word "aromacology" is an accepted and generic term used throughout the industry to indicate a type of science in relation to the effects of aromas. They felt that the mark was registered in breach of the Trade Marks Act 1994 as it was devoid of distinctive character. It was argued that other members of the trade would need to be able to use the term in order to accurately explain their activities.
R contended that it had invented the word and that the trade mark was distinctive at the date of the application for registration and following registration as a result of distinctiveness acquired through use.
The court held that it was unclear as to where the word Aromacology had originated but what was apparent was that the name is regularly used to denote a new type of research into the psychological and physiological effects of aromas, the word being used to indicate a more scientific approach than that of aromatherapy. There was some evidence to indicate that a proportion of consumers did associate the mark Aromacology with DR however it was held that there was a greater chance that the word would be considered to be generic for a type of science and goods related to that science.
The mark was declared to be invalid.
BRIFFA Comment:
Once a mark has become registered it is important that it is used for the purposes registered (it must not remain unused for any continuous five year period during its registration) and also that the mark is policed and protected to avoid claims that the mark has become generic through use by competitors.