Nijntje keeps Kathy outside of the Benelux

World famous cat Hello Kitty (developed in 1974) recently got a new friend, Kathy the bunny. Like Hello Kitty, Kathy was a stylized animal, characterized by thick lines and a lack of depth. Eager to exploit Kathy commercially Sanrio immediately granted licenses to manufacturers of clothing and toys.  

In the Benelux H&M(clothes) and Bart Smit(toys) started selling Kathy merchandise. This, however, did not go well with Mercis, a Dick Bruna owned company that manages all intellectual property rights concerning Nijntje, the world famous bunny.
The court eventually decided that even though Nijntje is a very stylized bunny, she is most certainly an artistic creation, and therefore protected by copyright. Nijntje, like Kathy, is characterized by the thick lines and elementary colors. The proportion of the head in relation to the hands and body is almost identical. The court judged that it is clear that Kathy had been copied off Nijntje, the only real difference between them being the mouth and shape of the ears.
 

copyright



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?