INNOCENT CRIMINAL on appeal before the appointed person

Claire Lehr, Eleanor Showering and Marelyn Perez-Millan of our Intellectual Property team recently wrote an article for World Trademark Review, examining a recent IPO appeal decision which highlights that a strikethrough of a word does not automatically erase consumer perception of that word.

• The appointed person has confirmed that there was no likelihood of confusion between INNOCENT CRIMINAL and CRIMINAL for Class 25 goods
• Despite the strikethrough of the word ‘innocent’, the word remained legible and visually prominent
• The phrase ‘innocent criminal’ is conceptually unique and not a logical brand variant of CRIMINAL

The appointed person, Daniel Alexander KC, has upheld the hearing officer’s decision in an appeal filed by Criminal Clothing Limited, which had opposed registration of INNOCENT CRIMINAL (stylised and device) on the basis of its earlier rights in CRIMINAL, both marks being in Class 25.

The case examines in detail conceptual similarity, consumer perception and direct and indirect confusion. Criminal Clothing claimed that registration of the mark INNOCENT CRIMINAL conflicted with its own CRIMINAL mark – in essence, that ‘criminal’ was the dominant part of the mark and that the average consumer would see INNOCENT CRIMINAL as an extension or sub-brand of CRIMINAL, especially given the stylised strikethrough of the word ‘innocent’.

Background
Relande Barrett-Gordon applied to register the trademark INNOCENT CRIMINAL (stylised and device) in Class 25, covering a broad range of clothing items. Criminal Clothing opposed the application on the basis of its registered mark CRIMINAL, also in Class 25.The opposition was dismissed, with the hearing officer concluding that the marks were “materially different visually, orally and conceptually – and sufficiently so for confusion to be unlikely.”

Criminal Clothing appealed, maintaining that the average consumer would naturally associate the mark INNOCENT CRIMINAL with CRIMINAL, particularly due to the strikethrough of the word INNOCENT, which Criminal Clothing argued would be disregarded…

You can read the full article here (pdf).

This article first appeared on WTR Daily (subscription required), part of World Trademark Review, in June 2025. For further information, please go to www.worldtrademarkreview.com.