European campaign Vlaams Belang infringes Westmalle trademarks

Campaigns from Belgian political party Vlaams Belang often lead to court cases. The latest campaign for the European Parliamentary elections was no different: “Westmal of halal”. In the campaign we see Philip Dewinter drinking from a dome shaped glass, which is filled with a dark brown liquid. This image is the main visual on the Facebook campaign and the Twitter message announcing the campaign.

Abdij der Trappisten van Westmalle did not wish to be associated with this multimedia political campaign and started a procedure with the district court of Antwerp. The abbey did not only register the word WESTMALLE TRAPIST as a trademark, but also the distinctive shape of her Westmalle glass. The court ruled that the campaign does infringe the trademark rights. Westmal is a shortened version of Westmalle, which is the dominant element of the trademark WESTMALLE TRAPPIST. The dome shaped glass is also similar to the abbey’s registration. In the campaign it is also clear that reference is made to the Westmalle beer and not the like named village. This means an unfair advantage is being taken of the trademark’s reputation. The campaign may furthermore also damage the reputation of the trademark. The campaign was therefore prohibited for the European elections.

advertising-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?