Vicky Colley

June 2026

Background 

On 23 November 2020, Iron & Smith Kft. filed a European trade mark application for “BREITLING FOR WOMEN” in class 3 for the following aromatic, perfumery goods and cosmetics:- 

Class 3: Aromatic oils; Aromatherapy oil; Skin care oils [non-medicated]; Perfumery, essential oils; Coconut oil for cosmetic purposes; Essential vegetable oils; Oils for perfumes and scents; Perfume oils for the manufacture of cosmetic preparations; Rose oil; Mint essence [essential oil]; Natural oils for cosmetic purposes; Natural essential oils; Bases for flower perfumes; Aromatics for perfumes; Aromatics for fragrances; Peppermint oil [perfumery]; Liquid perfumes; Cedarwood perfumery; Scented body spray; Scented body lotions and creams; Perfumed tissues; Perfumed creams; Perfumed toilet waters; Ionone [perfumery]; Perfumes; Cologne impregnated disposable wipes; Amber [perfume]; Extracts of flowers [perfumes]; Body deodorants [perfumery]; Body sprays [non-medicated]; Natural oils for perfumes; Natural perfumery; Synthetic vanillin [perfumery]; Synthetic perfumery; Solid perfumes; Rose oil for cosmetic purposes; Fragrances for personal use; Scented water; Perfumes for industrial purposes; Extracts of perfumes; Fragrance preparations; Eau de parfum; Toilet water; Lavender oil for cosmetic use; Lavender water; Mint for perfumery; Deodorants for personal use [perfumery]; Lip stains [cosmetics]; Lip cosmetics; Face paint; Facial concealer; Face and body glitter; Base cream; Face powder; Tanning milks [cosmetics]; Skin foundation; Camouflage cream; Creams for tanning the skin; Decorative cosmetics; Glitter for cosmetic purposes; Decorative transfers for cosmetic purposes; Powder compacts [cosmetics]; Concealers; Moist paper hand towels impregnated with a cosmetic lotion; Cosmetic pencils for cheeks; Mousses [cosmetics]; Cosmetic creams; Beauty masks; Cosmetic eye pencils; Cosmetic preparations for eyelashes; Eyebrow cosmetics; Self-tanning preparations [cosmetics]; Make-up for the face and body; Sun bronzers; Make-up kits; Make-up pencils; Make-up removing lotions; Make-up preparations for the face and body; Liners [cosmetics] for the eyes; Body paint for cosmetic purposes; Mascara. 

The mark was published on 8 December 2020 and registered on 23 November 2023.  

On 15 November 2023, Breitling SA filed a declaration of invalidity against the contested mark, in respect of all of the goods on the grounds of Article 59(1)(b)  – bad faith – and Article 60(1)(a) EUTMR alongside Article 8(1)(a) and (5)  – thesebeing that the mark is identical to Breitling’s three earlier trade mark registrations and covers identical or similar goods and services. It, finally, claims that the mark takes unfair advantage of Breitling’s trade mark’s reputation.  

For this Invalidity Action, Breitling relied on their below earlier registrations:- 

International Trade Mark Registration No. 890749, designating the EU, for “BREITLING”,  in respect of the following goods in class 14:-  

Class 14: Precious metals and their alloys and goods made of these materials or plated therewith included in this class, jewellery, precious stones, horological and chronometric instruments. 

International Trade Mark Registration No. 613794, designating the EU, for:-  

in respect of the following goods in class 14:-  

Class 14: Precious metals and their alloys and goods made of these materials or coated therewith; jewelry, precious stones, timepieces and chronometric instruments. 

And International trade mark Registration No. 1045863, designating the EU, for:- 

in respect of the following goods and services:- 

Class 3: Bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations; soap; perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions; dentifrices. 

Class 9: Scientific, nautical, surveying, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signaling, checking (supervision), life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments; apparatus and instruments for conducting, switching, transforming, accumulating, regulating or controlling electricity; apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; magnetic data carriers, recording discs; automatic vending machines and mechanisms for coin-operated apparatus; cash registers, calculating machines, data processing equipment and computers; extinguishers. 

Class 14: Precious metals and their alloys and goods in precious metals or coated therewith, not included in other classes; jewelry, precious stones; horological and chronometric instruments. 

Class 16: Paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials, not included in other classes; printed matter; bookbinding material; photographs; stationery; adhesives [glues] for stationery or household purposes; artists’ materials; paintbrushes; typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); printing type; printing blocks. 

Class 18: Leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of these materials and not included in other classes; animal skins; trunks and traveling bags; umbrellas, parasols and walking sticks; whips, harness and saddlery. 

Class 25: Clothing, footwear, headgear. 

Class 41: Education; providing of training; entertainment; organization of sports competitions, timing of sports events, production of videotape films, film production; cultural activities. 

Declaration of Invalidity 

In their invalidity action, Breitling argued that their reputation as a luxury watch brand was extremely well known and submitted extensive evidence of their brand’s reputation, further arguing that the proprietor was, or should have been, aware of the brand and their earlier trademarks when filing the Application.  Additionally, Breitling argued that it is not unusual for luxury brands such as watch makers to branch into perfume and cosmetics. 

Breitling also claimed that the Proprietor was acting in bad faith by reproducing the BRIETLING mark in an identical manner with the descriptive suffix “-FOR WOMEN”. They further submitted that the Proprietor, Iron & Smith, and the CEO of the Proprietor, had a pattern of filing trade mark applications in the name of multiple different companies,  which incorporated well known third party trade mark registrations, including “EVIAN FOR HER”, “ASTON MARTIN HOMME” and “NEW BALANCE FOR HER”.  Many of these applications had been withdrawn after oppositions. 

Iron & Smith counter argued that they were unaware of Breitling’s brand or earlier trademarks and referred to the Lindt test, which sets out that a finding of bad faith requires, among other factors, evidence that the applicant had knowledge of the earlier mark.  Iron & Smith argued that, as there is no evidence of them knowing about the earlier brand, it cannot be proven that the mark was filed in bad faith.  

They also argued that the multiple applications filed by companies in connection with their CEO was unsubstantiated conjecture and that Breitling had very little evidence of bad faith. Iron & Smith, additionally, argued that the evidence Breitling filed of their earlier reputation was merely “screenshots from 2023”. 

Breitling replied that the evidence provided of their reputation existed before the contested trade mark was applied for, and was therefore sufficient to show earlier use of the mark.  

The Cancellation Division agreed with Breitling in that they could not find an intentional reason for the Proprietor to file a trade mark application including the term “BREITLING”, unless they deliberately intended to create an association with the well-known ‘Breitling’ brand, and therefore concluded that the mark should be found to be invalid on the grounds of bad faith. The Cancellation Division found that, as the findings on the ground of bad faith was sufficient to invalidate the contested mark, there was no need to reach further conclusions on the relative grounds based on Breitling’s prior registrations, 

Court of Appeal 

Iron & Smith appealed this decision on 27 March 2025.  

Within their appeal, they filed further arguments that third party trade mark registrations had also used the term “BREITLING” within their trade marks and used the example of “THOMAS BREITLING” in class 25, and that this registration undermined Breitling’s assertion of exclusivity.  

Iron & Smith also stated that they were the largest cosmetics supplier in Hungary, and that the application had been made with a genuine intention to use the mark, and provided evidence of mock ups of perfume bottles labelled “BREITLING”.  

They, again, referred to the Lindt test, asserting that they had no prior knowledge of the “BREITLING” marks, that there was no intention to prevent Breitling from using their mark, and that “knowledge of an identical or similar earlier sign in respect of identical or similar goods or services in itself will not be sufficient to support a conclusion in bad faith”.  

Breitling SA responded to these arguments, insisting that bad faith does not require finding a confusing similarity between the goods and services, and that a finding of bad faith can occur even if goods differ, as long as there is a link between the goods and services (for example, with watches and cosmetics both existing as luxury goods which improve a person’s image and appearance). 

They also responded to the arguments surrounding the “THOMAS BREITLING” registration, stating that there was a coexistence agreement between themselves and the proprietor of “THOMAS BREITLING”, and that, therefore this mark does not undermine their rights. 

Board of Appeal’s Decision 

The Board of Appeal found that the invalidity action was admissible.  

It accepted Breitling’s extensive evidence of long-standing reputation, and concluded that Iron & Smith must have been aware of the Breitling brand as it is common for luxury brands to expand into perfumes and related goods. 

The Board further held that the CEO’s connected companies and repeated pattern of trade mark applications featuring well-known brand names, as well as the apparent attempt to hide these applications by filing through multiple applicants significantly strengthened the finding of bad faith.  

It also found that the contested mark to be highly similar to Breitling’s earlier registrations, as the only addition was the descriptive term “-for women”.  

Finally, The Board confirmed that for the purposes of bad faith, the goods do not need to be similar when both parties carry out commercial activity in adjacent markets.  

The appeal was dismissed and the mark remains invalid.  

Conclusion 

This Decision continues the growing trend of bad faith claims before the EUIPO and UKIPO courts and tribunals. It, once again, emphasises the importance for a genuine commercial intention to use the mark in a manner that does not infringe on earlier rights.