Trademarks may not be confusingly similar. The trademarks are being compared in order to decide if this is the case. The judge compares the trademarks visually, phonetically and conceptually. However, is one of these criteria sufficient to obstruct another trademark. This is the central question in the ‘Witte Wieven’ cheese case. »10
In the year 2001, tapas restaurant ‘the Encounter’ opens its doors in the city of Nijmegen. They register their logo for catering services, in order to protect the goodwill of the restaurant.In the year 2014, a restaurant named ‘the Encounter Zutphen’ is opened in the city of Zutphen (approximately 50 km from Nijmegen). The party from Nijmegen claims that this is infringement of their trademark rights. »10
Drinkopoly is a remarkable game. Basically, the main goal is to drink with your friends. As you can imagine, playing the game is a unique experience every time, because one simply does not remember the previous encounter. The logo speaks for itself, showing a drinking couple, with one of them laying on the ground, completely drunk. When trademark protection is being sought for the logo of Drinkopoly, Hasbro (the producer of Monopoly) opposes the application. »10
When is the use of a text or design Trademark infringement? An important question, since the increasing use of words and bright colors on t-shirts and sweaters.H&M sells sweaters with the word CHIEF and the face of an Indian printed on them. Jeans Centre summons H&M to stop the sale, claiming infringement of it´s trademark CHIEF. H&M disagrees and continues the sale. »10
Spa Monopole has been granted an exclusive license, by the authorities, to exploit the natural water sources and thermal baths of the Spa region. The firm has registered the trademark SPA for a wide scale of products, like bottled water and cosmetics. When Kruidvat uses the names SPA SECRETS, SENSE OF SPA, ZOUTSCRUB SPA and SEL DE GOMMAGE SPA, to launch a new line of cosmetics and care products, Spa Monopole objects. »10
MENTOS has been selling chewing gum under the name MENTOS PURE FRESH for several years. In order to protect her rights MENTOS has registered the following trademarks: the logo MENTOS PURE FRESH, the logo MENTOS PURE FRESH 3 and a figurative depiction of the word PURE.
Defendant sells chewing gum under the trademark DENTYNE PURE and has registered its logo as a trademark.
Infringement or not?