Who the fuck is Channel

In order to gain attention for your products with the general public it can be very attractive to align your products with the reputation of an existing trademark. However, if this is done too explicitly it can lead to problems. Fashion designer CHANEL (established in 1909 by Coco Chanel) has been doing well on the market since the arrival of Karl Lagerfeld. In order to protect their trademarks well (and act against counterfeit) both the word CHANEL and the logo (two mirrored Cs) have been registered as trademarks.

When Glamorous introduces T-shirts on the markted, Chanel immediately goes to court. The court is very clear in its verdict. Chanel is a famous fashion brand and enjoys a wide scope of protection. Images of Coco Chanel and Karl Lagerfeld will align Glamorous with Chanel. Furthermore, the word CHANNEL (used in “who the fuck is Channel”) is visually and conceptually highly similar with CHANEL. Glamorous clearly wishes to take advantage of Chanel’s reputation and ride the coattail of the well know trademark. By using the text in the way it was done, serious damage to the reputation of CHANEL could occur.

Glamorous is prohibited to continue this infringing act. Furthermore, any profit made by use of this ad must immediately be transferred to Chanel. Any clothing remaining must immediately be destroyed and the legal expenses Chanel made reimbursed (a small E. 15,000). Aligning yourself with the market leader van be lucrative, but always check if there is no infringement in doing so.

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?