juridisch-administratief medewerker Yassine Hammou

Yassine Hammou

trademark assistent
E-mail:
hammou@abcor-ip.com


While studying at the University of Applied Sciences Leiden, Yassine specialized in IP by participating in the minor IP & Privacy laws. He was drawn to the dynamics of trademark law, which made him decide to write his thesis within trademark law. He conducted research into proving genuine use of Benelux- and EU-trademarks in opposition procedures at the BOIP and EUIPO. Yassine has joined Abcor as Trademark assistant in September 2023. In his spare time Yassine loves to travel, look at modern art and have great conversations with friends.

Languages: Dutch, English

• Diplomas: Bachelor of Laws from the University of Applied Sciences Leiden

Education

Leiden University of Applied Sciences

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?