Trademark registration

Trademark registration, information about registration of European community trademarks, Benelux trademarks, logos, slogans, packaging, 3D ,marks, color marks, smell marks, movies, non-traditional marks and any other identification of a company. »

Trademark search

Trademark availability search, importance of prior trademark search, conflicting prior company names, visual, aural or conceptual similar trademarks »

Trademark infringement, trademark issues and oppositions

The importance of taking actions against trademark infringement, trademark issues and timely filing of trademark oppositions. Avoid lost revenue and dilution of goodwill. Avoid customers will be redirected to alternative products. Confusingly similar marks. The passive attitude of Benelux authorities, no examination on relative grounds. Trademark owner responsible for checking if similar marks have been registered. »

Design Registration

The importance and benefits of design patent registration, European community designs, Benelux designs, protection of design, IP value contribution of design registrations, benefits of a design registration by licensing of products »

Domain Names

Domain name registration, domain name watch services, request new extensions, new gTld and cctld domain name portfolio management, strategic advice what to register, domain name conflicts, domain name disputes, WIPO domain name arbitration, Sunrise, Trademark Clearinghouse »

Internet online branding social media

Strategy, online branding, domain name hijacking, typo squatting, online counterfeit, Google Adwords, take down procedures, WIPO domain name arbitration and mediation centre. »

Trademark watch services, mark monitoring

Importance of trademark watching services, procedures against similar marks Benelux opposition procedure, European opposition procedure, cease and desist letters. »

Goodwill business / IP check

Goodwill protection, goodwill check, due diligence, creation of intellectual property, licensing, distribution agreements, trademarks, designs, patents, designs, advertising, social media accounts »

Copyright and advertising law

Copyright, advertising law, what is allowed in the parody, freedom of speech, portrait rights, privacy protection »


Patents, legal requirements, technical character, inventions what is new and innovative. What and where to register? How to renew, renewal fees. Dutch Patents, Writing a good patent application. »

Secondment - temporary support

Secondment, temporary support by maternity leave, support by due diligence, acquisition and integration IP portfolios »
Our Clients
Follow Abcor

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.