Website names acquire distinctiveness faster - court case Benelux trademark registrations

Within a few years time VAKANTIEVEILINGEN.NL  (vacation auctions.nl) became a leader in online auctions of vacations. In 2010 the site was named the most popular website in the travel category. Success often leads to imitation, and sure enough a competitor launched VAKANTIEVEILING.NL. VAKANTIEVEILINGEN.NL  immediately sued their competitor for the use of this website.  

VAKANTIEVEILINGEN.NL invoked her word mark. The other party claimed that this mark was a purely descriptive name and therefore could not be invoked successfully. The court disagreed, however. Through intense use on the internet a name may acquire distinctiveness much faster than through traditional means. VAKANTIEVEILINGEN.NL had the required distinctiveness and won the lawsuit. The other party was prohibited to use her domain name any longer and was to pay damages (approx. € 13,000, -).
 

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?