Trademark news

PUMA logo PUMN: spot the differences

It is still a strange but given fact. Sometimes companies apply for trademarks for which the source of inspiration is beyond obvious. A senseless operation, so it seems. » trademarks

Prohibition of fake online reviews

Since May 28, it has been prohibited to post false consumer reviews on online stores, marketplaces or social media. The law is based on a EU directive to better protect consumers online. Reason: many consumers place great value on reviews of products and services on the Internet. » internet-online-branding

NFT: trademark registrations in the metaverse

Ever since Mark Zuckerberg announced his plans to turn his social media platforms into a metaverse business, NFTs and metaverse have been in the spotlight. The metaverse is the new internet, in which all 3D spaces are linked together. Participants in the metaverse use an avatar, a virtual character, with which someone communicates, meets, flirts, et cetera with others. NFTs (non-fungible tokens) are unique, non-exchangeable digital items. NFTs were initially introduced for digital forms of art. » trademark-registration

Volkswagen trumps cult camper

The shape of a product can be protected as a trademark. In order to do so, it must differ significantly from what is already present in the market or has become very well known (acquired distinctiveness). When a trademark application is filed for the Cultcamper logo, Volkswagen successfully opposes it on the basis of its registered shape mark. » trademarks

Adidas: bare breasts and sports bras

In a campaign ad for its sports bras Adidas states that not all breasts are the same. Adidas acknowledges this and launches a new line of sports bras with 43 different sizes. Visually, this is supported by displaying different women's breasts (on Twitter with 24 different breasts and on posters with 62 breasts and the pay-off: The reasons we didn't make just one new sports bra). » advertising-law
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?