Design more important than words Coca Cola vs Matser Cola

In order to optimally protect the goodwill of their brand Coca Cola not only registered the word COCA COLA as a trademark, but also the figurative elements surrounding it, such as the shape of the bottle and the font. Recently an application was filed for the logo MASTER, for soda, which was opposed by Coca Cola.

At first Coca Cola is not successful, mostly because MASTER is a word very different from COCA COLA. Because of this the consumer would allegedly not be confused. Words generally play a larger role when comparing two trademarks. The European Court, however, took an entirely different approach. The court noted that there were some striking similarities between the two trademarks as well. Both marks had a “tail” as an extension to their C and M, respectively. Furthermore, the typography was based on the (unusual) Spencer font.
Because the goods involved are supermarket products the design has a very important impact. The consequence of this is that the trademarks are in fact somewhat similar when taking this into account. The earlier ruling was overturned and it all ended for MASTER

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?