HANSGROHE showerhead - design registrations become increasingly more important

Protection of a product through design registration has been an all but forgotten option in the Benelux for a long time. However, in the past few years it has become increasingly more evident just how important this method of protection may be.  

Hansgrohe claimed that her competitor Tiger infringed her design rights. Hansgrohe claimed that Tiger’s Niagra showerhead was essentially the same as her own showerhead. The court, however, did not agree with this and stated that the Niagra showerhead gave a different general impression than the Hansgrohe showerhead.

The Court of Appeal, however, disagreed completely and gave a much broader scope of protection to Hansgrohe’s design rights. Tiger claimed that Hansgrohe’s design owed its shape to technical specifications. The Court of Appeal, however, judged that although the shape of the showerhead is largely determined by technical characteristics, it is not the only technologically possible shape for a showerhead and can therefore be protected as a design. The fact that certain elements of the design were inspired by a certain fashion trend or style also does not affect the validity of the design, according to the Court of Appeal. The Court judged that Tiger’s product infringes Hansgrohe’s design rights. An injunction followed and Tiger was ordered to pay Hansgrohe’s legal expenses, which were over € 93,000.-.

 

 

design-law



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?