European Community Design - Ban during opening at Trade Mart

Christina Arvin Hembo is a jewelerry designer from Denmark. Her jewellery is composed of expensive material such as gold, silver and precious stones, which can be attached to leather bracelets. Each piece of jewellery has its own name, such as passion heart and four leaf clover. The jewellery is for sale in over more than twenty countries, through various distributors, such as th company Endless. In order to protect her rights Christina has protected her creations as European designs.

Problems arise when Endless starts to offer jewellery that is very similar to Christina’s designs. Even the names of the jewellery is identical, such as passion heart. The only difference is the price, which is lower. When Christina notices that this collection is about to be presented at a large fair in Utrecht, she files legal action and requests a ban on the products.

The court decides that the jewellery is in all likeliness an infringement on Christina’s IP. Because the fair was about to open the very next day Christina was allowed to enforce a ban on the stand of Endless, along with a potential fine of € 15,000 per day. Strategically this was a very good move. Not only did it hurt the infringer financially, but publicly as well.

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?