Social networks: Twitter Account under a false name

TWITTER is hot. That makes it an attractive medium to exploit. Increasingly, there are Twitter accounts created under the name of someone else. So the account HEROBRINKMANPVV account is not owned by the PVV MP. But he is not the only victim of this. There were also false accounts of Mark Rutte (prime minister of the Netherlands - now off the air), the TELEGRAAF, (l was here replaced by a i) and Benedicte Ficq a criminal lawyer.

Applying for a Twitter account with someone else's name is not punishable in the Netherlands (it is for example in the U.S. state of California). It is not always equally clear that it is a 'fake account'. As a result, there is sometimes confusion on the origin of some Tweets.

Adopting a 'false identity' is basically fraud, deception or forgery, depending on how it is used. Some Twitter accounts are clearly parodies. A familiar example is koningin_NL (see Tweet from 11 January). In civil law there is not much to do at the registering of an account consisting of someone else's name. Partly because Twitter (but also other social media like Facebook) do not disclose the identity and personal data of the applicant for privacy reasons. Should there be a clear misrepresentation or breach of IP rights, file a direct complaint to Twitter / Facebook, they always deal with matters swiftly.
social-media



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?