US clothing giant Abercrombie & Fitch doesn’t want pop singer Beyonce Knowles using “Fierce” in her new perfume’s label – even if it is named after her current alter ego, Sasha Fierce.
In a federal lawsuit filed on Tuesday in Columbus, Ohio, Abercrombie claims a fragrance under the singer’s “Sasha Fierce” label “poses a likelihood of confusion” with the retailer’s own “Fierce” brand.
It said such confusion could deprive it of control over a trademark it has used since 2002, and perhaps cost it sales. The lawsuit seeks to halt potential trademark infringement, unfair competition and deceptive trade practices.
Abercrombie & Fitch have a perfume called “Fierce” that they use to perfume their store and their clothes, they also let customers purchase it to prolong that freshly bought smell.
Beyonce recently released a 2 CD concept album “I am… Sasha Fierce” where one CD features a nice and lovely Beyonce and the other features the sassy diva Sasha Fierce.
Is there a chance someone could get confused over the two brands? Quite possibly but I don’t think that’s enough to grant Abercrombie the monopoly to use what is such a trendy descriptive term.
Think of it this way, if I created a perfume called “Pretty” should that stop everyone from using “Pretty” in their perfume labels? That would mean that no one could use “Pretty Sweet”, “Pretty Flowers”, “Pretty Ordinary” as trademarks for any future perfumes (as long I kept paying my trademark renewals fees which could be eternity).
Such a commonly used single word shouldn’t be accepted for trademark registration in the first place, it being a word that other traders could quite reasonably and quite foreseeably want to use. Desirable descriptive terms go beyond the term “perfume” and “eau de cologne” and “eau de toilette”, there are a limited number of adjectives at a particular time (obviously influenced by trends) that are commonly used with a product to express desirable features. I don’t think that some company should be the only company to be use “Pretty” – if they wish to have trademark protection, they should be required to include more immediately distinctive information that doesn’t tie up such a valuable term, for example “Pretty by Coty” could coexist alongside “Pretty by Revlon”.
“Fierce” is a buzz word of this past decade, much like “Groovy” was of the 60s. For it’s target market, it’s just as a desirable term as “pretty” (actually more so because it’s trendy and not naff like the latter). It’s my feeling is that if you go with a purely descriptive (and simple) term like “pretty” or “fierce”, you open yourself up to competition with others on that term. The law shouldn’t be there to help protect that monopoly.
From Beyonce sued by Abercrombie & Fitch over fragrance [Yahoo News via Reuters]
