Association sufficient to ward off Swoosh

Famous brands have a wider scope of protection. The European Court in the case of L'Oréal / Bellure decided that "It is no longer admissible to sail in the wake of a famous trademark and profit from its reputation and prestige, without a financial compensation." Many court decisions followed based on this case, but they always concerned a wordmark. To date there is little case law on how these rules apply to pure logos (logos without any accompanying words).       

Now finally there is a decision in Europe that concerns a famous logo. The issue revolves around Nike’s "Swoosh” logo (an extremely well known brand) and a similar logo for shoes from a Chinese proprietor. The Court has ruled that the logos are not confusingly similar. But the marks resemble each other enough to be associated with each other. Confusion is not required for a reputable brand, association is sufficient to take advantage of the reputation of the Nike logo. Nike therefore won this case based on the reputation of her logo. A victory not only for NIKE, but for all famous figurative trademarks in general. in any countries in which you may use it.
 

trademarks



Latest news
Rituals vs. The Body Shop: Battle of the Brands
The Bulldog rightly claims damages from Red Bull
Trademark Escobar parfum contrary to public order
Abcor team in World Trademark Review 1000
Louis Keijzer passes BBMM exam with flying colours
Our Clients
Follow Abcor
claimant
defendant
claimant
defendant

IP quiz Trademarks

Puma is one of the bigger sports and lifestyle brands in the world. The core-business is the design, development and sale of (sports) shoes, (sports) clothing and accessories. In 1960, Puma registered an international trademark for a device designed in 1958: the formstrip. Since then, Puma has registered approximately 90 formstrip trademarks with validity in the Benelux or the European Union. Puma claims that this is a serial mark. Monshoe is a wholesaler of women's shoes and related products. The company designs and develops Monshoe shoes which it largely markets itself. Monshoe sells its women's shoes under the brands Shoecolate and Pearlz. The shoe Shoecolate is offered in various colour combinations. Puma claims that Monshoe infringes its well-known formstrip trademark. Monshoe contradicts this and states that the average consumer will not perceive the device of Monshoe on the sneakers as a trademark. And if the public will recognize a trademark in the decoration, it will not make the connection to Puma. According to Monshoe, the formstrip logo is not a well-known trademark within the meaning of the BVIE and the UMVo. There is no likelihood of confusion because the sign does not or hardly evoke any association with Puma among the public. In light of the above, who is right? Does this constitute decorative use or linking to a well-known trademark?