An unpleasant encounter - trademark infringement restaurant names De Ontmoeting

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.

The restaurant owner from Zutphen disagrees, claiming that over 800 companies are registered at the Chamber of Commerce using this name, so the name is free to be used by everybody. Furthermore, the logos are different, as are the cities where the parties are established and for these reasons, there is no risk of confusion.

The judge does not agree, stating that the dominant part of both logo’s is the word ‘encounter’ and that the offered services are identical. It does not matter that the restaurants are 50 kilometers apart. Both companies direct themselves to the same audience through internet. Therefore, the consumers might think that the restaurant in Zutphen is a new establishment of the same owner in another city. In the end, the party from Zutphen has to change their name and, as the losing party, pay for the legal expenses of the other.

trademarks



Latest news
The Bulldog rightly claims damages from Red Bull
Trademark Escobar parfum contrary to public order
Abcor team in World Trademark Review 1000
Louis Keijzer passes BBMM exam with flying colours
Competitor registers domain name
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?