Abcor: that other trademark agency

Abcor is a full service design and trademark agency specialized in legal advice and the protection of Intellectual Property rights. We are a strategic partner and provide short, clear-cut and practical advice.

We do not only look at the legal side of a case, but also take into account other business aspects such as marketing , social media, the consequences of product launches and of course the costs. We like to think and work out of the box with our client.

A vast majority of our lawyers are Certified European Trademark Attorneys. In the past, they have been working as in-house lawyers in corporate firms, including in advertising, consumer fast moving products and the pharmaceutical industry. Therefore their approach is often business oriented, practical and easy for our clients to understand.

Curious about a refreshing second opinion? Please contact one of our lawyers at info@abcor-ip.com.

 

Abcor

"Many entrepreneurs are unaware of the value of their IP assets"

Mr. Th W. van Leeuwen LL.M.
President, Trademark agency Abcor

Categories
Our team
»
FAQ
»
Publications
»
IP Quiz
»
Our Services
Trademark News
Abcor acquires Anchor Intellectual Property client portfolio

Abcor acquires Anchor Intellectual Property client portfolio

After acquiring Bureau Blanchard, trademark agency Abcor took over Anchor IP's client portfolio last summer. The acquisition was expected because Abcor has indicated that it wants to grow not only through natural growth but also through active acquisitions. » other-general
Christmas with M&S and Aldi

Christmas with M&S and Aldi

At Christmas 2020, M&S introduced a new line of gin bottles. When shaken, edible gold flakes fall like snow. The bottle has an LED at the bottom to enhance the visibility of the falling gold flakes. M&S immediately registered the design of the bottle, including both the falling flakes and the LED lighting. » design-law
There is Only One NIELSON

There is Only One NIELSON

Trademark rights grant monopoly over the use of a name for specific goods and services. However, only one entity can use that name, which can be exploited but also has limits. » trademarks
False Hope for Descriptive Marks

False Hope for Descriptive Marks

From a marketing perspective, it is attractive to use a word for a new brand that directly conveys its essence. With such a descriptive mark, consumers immediately understand what the product represents. However, the drawback is that authorities refuse a trademark if it is descriptive. Sometimes, it is possible to register such a mark, but how reliable is this in case of infringement? » trademarks
Social media and the Olympics

Social media and the Olympics

The IOC has registered many of its Olympic symbols as trademarks or designs. In addition, there are often local laws to prevent any kind of Ambush marketing. Only the official sponsors are allowed to use the Olympic symbols (like the words OLYMPIC or the 5 rings). So basically, all signs referring to the Olympics are forbidden to use, regardless of whether they are registered. The same rules apply to posts on social media. Private sponsors may congratulate athletes only if it aligns with Rule 40. » social-media
More trademark news »
Our Clients
ABCHronicle
Abcors ABChronicle no 53
Read this issue online »
Subscribe to newsletter »
Follow Abcor
IP Quiz
claimant
defendant
claimant
defendant

IP Knowledge Quiz Designs

The plaintiff specializes in online sales of children's bicycles. In safeguarding its rights, the company has registered the design of these bicycles under Community Design. Through a multiple design registration, the company secures the rights for 10 new versions of its children's bicycles simultaneously under Community Design. Subsequently, when the defendant introduces a similar bicycle, legal proceedings ensue. Among the various claims, the plaintiff alleges infringement of its design rights, which in turn is contested by the defendant. A design must possess novelty and individual character. The defendant states that the design lacks novelty, as elements of this design are already present in various existing bicycles. Essentially, the defendant's bicycles reproduce these elements, resulting in a lack of individual character. According to the defendant, the community designs are thus invalid. Even If the plaintiff's designs should be valid, the defendant argues that its bicycle deviates sufficiently. The defendant argues that the plaintiff has sought protection for more or less similar designs in the multiple design registration. Apparently, the plaintiff believes that these designs differ enough to create a different overall impression. The defendant's bicycles deviate just as much, thus creating a different overall impression (the so-called doctrine of equivalents argument). The question arises: are the plaintiff's bicycles valid designs despite comprising known aspects from various bicycles, or does the defendant's design exhibit sufficient deviation, thereby enabling the invocation of the doctrine of equivalents concerning the multiple design registration? The court determines that designers of children's bicycles enjoy considerable freedom in their designs. Consequently, if another bicycle lacks significant distinctions, it will quickly evoke a similar overall impression for the informed user, thereby lacking individual character. The comparison is drawn between the new design (the AMIGO bicycles from T.O.M.) and an older existing design (bicycle). To prove that a design is not new, you cannot, as Prijskiller (the defendant) asserts, mosaic together various elements. Therefore, as a defendant, you cannot argue that a design is not new because its characteristics are present in various different products (see also the judgment Karen Millen). If, as a designer, you combine different aspects from multiple designs for the first time into a new product, then this is simply a new and valid design. This is the case with the AMIGO bicycle. The design is upheld as valid. The AMIGO Magic bicycle features a unique tubular frame, rendering it novel. The bicycle is further distinguished by the name MAGIC, the chain guard design, and accessories such as a basket, handlebar streamers, and doll seat. Prijskiller contends that its frame shape differs (being thicker) and that the drawings are positioned differently. Additionally, Prijskiller highlights the distinct color scheme; however, TOM has registered the designs in line drawings, thus disregarding this element in the evaluation. Nevertheless, several similarities are apparent. Both bicycles exhibit an almost identical pattern of butterflies and flowers, positioned nearly identically on the frame. Furthermore, the name MAGIC is depicted in the same font and placement on the chain guard. Consequently, this bicycle fails to evoke a different overall impression for the informed user. The designer's extensive creative freedom in designing children's bicycles means that the differences highlighted by Prijskiller are minor and inconspicuous. Prijskiller's invocation of the doctrine of equivalents is likewise dismissed. The court opines that this case pertains to models concurrently deposited by T.O.M. This circumstance precludes the invocation of the "doctrine of equivalents" because, in compliance with the regulations regarding novelty, individual character, and the grace period, the various models cannot diminish each other's novelty or individual character, nor their scope of protection. In essence, in simultaneous (multiple) deposits, the "doctrine of equivalents" holds little significance. Consequently, these 2Cycle Magic bicycles fail to impart a different overall impression for the informed user. The designer's extensive freedom in designing children's bicycles and the minor differences highlighted by Prijskiller render the infringement claim upheld.
Play the quiz
»