Dracula; scope of normal use

A trademark registration is a powerful tool to prevent another company from introducing a product with a similar name. This is, however, not always the case. In most of the European Union if a trademark is older than five years it is subject to use. The trademark authorities will judge whether the use of the trademark constitutes normal use in commerce, for the type of good it has been used for.

Dracula was registered as a trademark in 1995 in Romania for liquor. The proprietor of this trademark objects against a European application for Dracula Bite, filed by a competitor. Because Dracula is a trademark older than five years the owner must proof that the trademark is in use. Only six invoices were provided as proof, corresponding with a sale of just 2,500 bottles in the past five years. Much too little for an area as large as Romania, where a lot of vodka is consumed. The competitor is allowed to register Dracula Bite.

trademark-registration



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?