SoulCycle Inc v Matalan [2017] EWHC 496 (High Court)

This judgment concerned an appeal from the Trade Mark Registry to the High Court concerning whether the mark SOULUXE was confusingly similar with the mark SOUL. The Registry had found that the two marks were not confusingly similar. On appeal, Mann J dismissed the appeal. Of interest was the appellant’s argument that the Registry had erred by considering two sets of average consumer, one group who saw SOUL in the SOULUXE mark and the other which did not. Mann J held that it was permissible to consider both groups when considering the likelihood of confusion applying Interflora v Marks and Spencer.

Guy Tritton acted for the respondent. 

Related Barrister Case List