RAW is not descriptive for clothing

In 2010 RB Europe started a cancelation action against RAW at OHIM. The reasoning for this being that RAW in its opinion is not distinctive for clothing. RAW refers to the raw and natural state of the material, material which has not been altered. In relation to the goods (clothing) it is immediately obvious what it is about, namely the structure of the tissues. Because this is an indication of one of the characteristics of the product, it is descriptive.

This case was very important to G-Star since several pending court cases are based on the RAW brand.

The Cancellation Division is clear in her statement: RAW is a great brand. The Raw brand will be understood by the public as "uncooked, raw and unfinished. That cannot be seen as a description of the characteristics of clothing. The claim was rejected, so G-Star can continue to use its RAW brand.
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?