Home
Our team
»
FAQ
»
Publications
»
IP Quiz
»
Our Services
Trademark news
Je Suis Charlie

Je Suis Charlie

  Sometimes I feel a bit ashamed to tell people that I’m a trademark Attorney when these kind of thing happen. Also in the Benelux a trademark was filed on the 8th of January, only one day after the attack in Paris. The mark was filed for the class headings in classes 03, 16, 25, 28, 32, 35 and 38. Trademarks are usually refused because they are descriptive/ or lack of distinctive character.  

In some rare cases a trademark is refused because it is deemed offensive to a part of the public. Unfortunately we do not legal ground to reject trademark applications in case they are insulting or offensive for other people, or if the trademark combines important religious or cultural symbols. In practice the Benelux trademark office nearly always accepts trademarks. Therefore, I was afraid that also this application would be accepted. Positive, I saw this morning that the application was withdrawn by the applicant after all the (negative) press publications in Belgium and the Netherlands.

Usual these kind of applications are accepted by the Examiner. In the past only a very few applications have been refused on this ground (deemed to be offensive to a part of the public) the last 10 years (e.g. the mark JODEN (Dutch for Jews) for shower heads. If there is a ‘problematic’ application, the Benelux Office usual refuse the mark as being not distinctive (e.g. the mark ALLAH for clothing). (Which is better than to accept them, but the legal ground is in my opinion not correct. ) Therefore, I still have the hope (although I know it’s a bit unrealistic) that some day we will have a legal ground in the Benelux to refuse this kind of filing, a legal ground that marks belonging to the public area (including cultural or religious symbols) cannot be claimed as a trademark.

trademarks

Trademark registration
»


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
ABCHronicle
Abcors ABChronicle no 50 Abcors ABChronicle no 50
Read this issue online »
Subscribe to newsletter »
Follow Abcor
IP Quiz
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?
Play the quiz
»