Glorious Gun purse Loes Vrij for sale at Zara? European Designs

  Loes Vrij is a new Dutch designed who became famous over night with her innovative designs for purses. Her style is best described as a mix of rich, chique and elegance. The purses are made of high quality materials. One of her designs, the Glorious Gun, is a rolled up purse with compartments for change, credit cards, lip stick and a mirror. A leather flap can be rolled around the purse to close it and a belt with bullets finishes the design. The exclusive purse is for sale at the more exclusive stores for € 798. A European design has been applied to protect the purse.  

After the presentation of the purse at the fashion week in Paris events unfold rapidly. The purse is currently for sale in over 25 countries, from Japan to Canada. This success did not go unnoticed, as Zara introduced a cheap knock off version of the bag at the beginning of this year. It seems the distinctive elements of the Glorious Gun have all been copied, which means the general impression on the consumer will not be different. Loes Vrij notified Zara of this infringement of her design rights. Zara immediately responded by removing the fake purse from her website and from all stores.

design-law



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?