Benelux trademarks - similarity- A squirrel is not a beaver

Chalet Center sells gazebos and used a beaver character in its communications. In order to prevent abuse by third parties, she registered the brand logo as a trademark. There is a conflict when a former employee founds a competing company: Miscellaneous Wood. Miscellaneous Wood sells gazebos and used as a squirrel family  as their logo.

The court looks whether the marks are visually, aurally or conceptually similar to each other. Visually the logos are quite different. The beaver is a line drawing in black and white, the squirrel family includes colour.
Actually, the only visual similarity between the involved animals in the logos are large incisors and a large tail. Conceptually it is clear that both logos involve rodents. That is not enough, however, to constitute trademark infringement. The court rejects the claim.
 

trademarks



Latest news
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
Competitor registers domain name
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?