An interesting, and pro-fashion, decision from the General Court in T‑57/16, Chanel SAS v EUIPO - Li Jing Zhou & Golden Rose 999 (Ornament).  It is not yet available in English, but Mr Google has once more lent us a hand in bringing you a summary.

Chanel attacked the validity of RCD 1689027-0001, which shows two interlocking S shapes and the indication of product reads "ornamentation", in Locarno Class 32 ("Graphic Symbols and Logos, Surface Patterns, Ornamentation").  The basis of the attack in this case was the prior publication of their own famous interlocking-C logo.

Chanel on the left, attacked design on the right

The Invalidity Decision and the Board of Appeal (R2346/2014-3) held that the later design created a different overall impression to the earlier one.  As well as noting the C vs S issue, the Board of Appeal indicated that "The fundamental differences in terms of the appearance of the two designs relate to their central parts, namely and clearly, an ellipse in the case of the Chanel monogram and a very recognisable infinity symbol in the case of the Community design".

Chanel struck luckier at the General Court, however.  An initial issue was the treatment of designs registered solely for "ornamentation".  Normally, the nature and sector of the goods concerned plays a part in determination of individual character, but in this case the GC agreed with the Board of Appeal that "in this case, it was not possible to determine the sector of products to which the contested design was intended to be incorporated or to be applied, nor to compare it with that of the Chanel monogram".  Thus, " ... such an ornament can be applied to a wide range of products, which makes the prior determination of its use virtually impossible. Consequently, this circumstance reinforces the need for careful analysis of the overall impressions produced by the drawings in conflict."  Also, as the function was ornamentation, no limitations on design freedom could be identified.  

The issue was therefore simply the similarity between the two logos.  In such a comparison, "... it must be recalled that it follows from the case-law that a comparison of the overall impressions produced by the designs must be synthetic and can not be limited to the analytical comparison of an enumeration of similarities and differences 29 October 2015, Roca Sanitario v OHIM - Villeroy & Boch (Single-acting valve), T-334/14, unpublished, EU: T: 2015: 817, paragraph 58)".

From this point on, the GC seems simply to have substituted its own judgment for that of the Board of Appeal.  They were clearly influenced by the fame of the Chanel logo, as they start their analysis by saying that "It should be noted that, in the present case, the earlier design shows remarkable similarities with the contested design. This can be seen to some extent as a creation inspired by the idea of the Chanel monogram, especially since the choice of the contested drawing was in no way conditioned by any constraints and its creator did not sufficiently differentiate said drawing from the Chanel monogram."  In other words, it would be seen as a Chanel-knockoff.  They then state their own opinion on the similarities between the middle and the outer parts, which differs from that of the Board.

Whilst we at Class 99 like to see the good guys win, we would have found a more nuanced view helpful in understanding how to approach such cases, and why the Board's approach was wrong.   Is it really correct to treat these as abstract scribbles, ignoring the fact that a double S has a different appearance (to those familiar with the Latin alphabet at any rate) to a double C?  Or to assume that a double letter monogram is necessarily a Chanel ripoff? Interlocking monograms are fairly common type of ornamentation, not least in Chanel's world, as evidenced by the following examples which Class 99 readers will no doubt readily recognise.  What do readers think?

As a postscript, Chanel also succeeded in cancelling the same design based on their earlier trade mark registration of their monogram, in Appeal Decision R1732-2015-2.  We doubt this one will get to the GC.