Beckham, who runs a fashion, apparel and cosmetics businesses under the VB marks, filed the appeal in the Federal Circuit Court in Victoria on March 30, after delegate Nicholas Smith of the Trade Marks Office dismissed her opposition to the skincare company’s stylized VB Skinlab and VB Salon marks on all grounds and allowed them to proceed to registration.

Beckham argued that registering the marks would be was contrary to law, that they were similar to her VB marks which had garnered a reputation in Australia, and that VB Skinlab’s application was made in bad faith. Beckham also opposed the VB Skinlab mark, claiming the company VB Skinlab was not the owner of the mark.

Smith rejected all of Beckham’s grounds of opposition, despite finding that she had used the VB mark in the Australian cosmetics and fashion industries in Australia since 2016, including in a highly publicised Estee Lauder makeup collection.

The delegate found that VB Skinlab was not the owner of the VB Skinlab mark. However, he found that Beckham failed to show that the mark was at least substantially identical to her own VB mark.

“On a side by side comparison there are clear differences between the respective trade marks, namely the stylisation of the VB element in the Skinlab mark, the presence of the horizontal line, and the addition of the word ‘skinlab’. I do not accept [Beckham’s] submissions that each of these differences should be discounted, with the only essential element being the letters VB,” Smith wrote.

Smith also rejected Beckham’s claims that the two marks should be opposed for being similar to her marks. The delegate found that while the marks were similar, there was no evidence there would be confusion between the marks.

“I reach this conclusion in respect of the Skinlab Mark bearing in mind the limited reputation of the VB Mark in Australia for cosmetics (and only slightly more extensive reputation for fashion goods) and the differences between the respective marks being the stylisation of the Skinlab mark (including the addition of the horizontal line) and the addition of the word Skinlab, which is not a direct reference to [VB Skinlab’s] goods,” Smith wrote.

“I reach the same conclusion in respect of the Salon Mark on the same basis and additionally note the difference between [VB Skinlab’s] services and the goods in which the VB mark has a reputation.”

With no evidence of confusion, Smith tossed a further ground of opposition that the use of the marks would breach the Australian Consumer Law.

Smith also dismissed Beckham’s argument that the marks had been registered in bad faith, finding that Beckham had not shown enough evidence that the application was made to take advantage of the VB marks’ reputation. Beckham’s claim that a brown-haired model on VB Skinlab’s website looked like her did not convince the delegate.

“I am particularly unpersuaded that [VB Skinlab’s] use, on its website (which otherwise makes no express or implied reference to [Beckham]) of an attractive female model with long dark hair is in any way a reference to [Beckham],” Smith said.

“Given the fame of [Beckham], it would be obvious to most visitors that the model is a completely different woman. Furthermore, the mere fact that a cosmetics company has used an attractive female model with long dark hair in connection with their products is hardly a basis to assert bad faith.”

A case management hearing has been scheduled for Friday before Judge Julia Baird.

Victoria Beckham was represented by Media Arts Lawyers. VB Skinlab was self-represented.