aspirant gemachtigde Louis Keijzer

Louis Keijzer

trademark advisor
E-mail:
keijzer@abcor-ip.com


During his Master intellectual property law & ICT at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Louis undertook an internship at the Dutch Patent Office. Here he researched the protectability of Graphical User Interfaces (GUI’s) by means of patent, trademark, design and copyright law for his final thesis. After receiving a good mark for his research and thus finalizing his time as a student, Louis joined the Abcor team as a paralegal. Here he seeks to combine his theoretical IP-knowledge with the practical side of IP to become an all-round IP-specialist.
In his spare time, Louis is a great music enthusiast and loves to play tennis and go birdwatching.

• Degrees: Bachelor of Laws, Utrecht University
• Master of Laws; Intellectual property & ICT, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
• Languages: Dutch, English

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?