A Wren Says

Quick imagination session: Think Burberry. What comes to mind?

Was it the tan check pattern? Was it the classic trench coat?

Okay, imagine now, you are a Chinese shopper heading into the mall. There is a Baneberry store, selling trench coats, and checked patterns, and all with a back story of being developed in London. Is any of that that making you think Burberry? Well a Chinese court would think so.

Burberry took the Chinese brand, Baneberry, to court over trademark infringement and won. I have reported a few trademark cases over the year. This is the first one that seems glaringly clear. It was confusing, and probably intentionally so.

Even though none of this took place in American courts, this is a good time to call out the “likelihood of confusion” factor. Essentially, you’re gauging how similar the marks are and whether that would lead to consumer confusion. Let’s break down why Baneberry was a problem based on the similarities to Burberry.

• Sound- Burberry and Baneberry- they don’t rhyme but they have definitely similarity with the berry ending and B as a staring letter.
• Appearance- Here are the logos. Both feature a night riding a horse in the same direction.
• Commercial impression- Design elements- Both brands have similar style clothing as well as the checked pattern. The items give a similar impression
• Related goods and services- Both sell clothing. If Baneberry were a pie company, this wouldn’t be a problem, because you likely would tell the difference.

From that quick analysis, it is pretty clear to me why the court found this to be a problem. I’m curious to see how will the result of this case will impact how western brands go about protecting their brands in China.