Troll Japanese clothing company CUGGL goes viral after winning lawsuit against GUCCI

Spread the love
Troll Japanese clothing company CUGGL goes viral after winning lawsuit against GUCCI

 After trying to stop CUGGL from trademarking a “confusing” logo that it claimed was essentially their trademark, GUCCI lost its action in a Japanese court.

The opposition was rejected by the Japan Patent Office because there weren’t enough similarities between the two logos for GUCCI to have a compelling argument.

According to Financial Times, Nobuaki Kurokawa, an Osaka resident who sells t-shirts that mimic well-known companies, is the owner of CUGGL. He transformed the Puma logo into several animal names, including pug, labra(dor), and pome (ranian). His website lists these tees for between $12 and $25.

Social media users react to CUGGL

A Twitter user announced the victory of the Japanese troll brand’s legal battle with the opulent Italian fashion label. A hot-pink brushstroke was used to partially obscure the CUGGL insignia, which GUCCI claimed was essentially its trademark.

Many users concurred with Nobuaki Kurokawa in their responses to the popular tweet, which has received over 25,000 likes, even labelling him a “genius” for mocking the high-end luxury company.

One person commented, “BIGGEST TROLL [laughing weeping emoji]” “This is brilliant! Please give us more of this, someone else chimed in.

Someone said, “Holy crap this is clever.” Another user added, “Why is this low key hard haha,” in agreement.

In October 2020, Kurokawa submitted an application for the trademark for CUGGL and a variant reading “GUANFI.” However, Gucci didn’t learn about the registration until much later.

According to Osaka-based trademark lawyer Masaki Mikami, the Italian fashion business accused its rival of trademarking the CUGGL symbol with the “malicious purpose to free-ride goodwill and reputation” of its brand.

READ ALSO:   ‘Squid Game’ Creator Defends Netflix Reality Series

The GUCCI and CUGGL emblems have been compared, however the Japanese Patent Office rejected this and claimed it could not find any similarities “from visual, phonetic, and conceptual points of view.”

Due to their “minimal degree of similarity,” the Board determined that consumers could not possible confuse the two marks.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *