Kruidvat’s SPA SECRETS prohibited

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.

Kruidvat wants to keep selling the mentioned products and initiates a lawsuit. Their main argument is that the word SPA refers to a wellnesscentre, which is the place where the products are being used. It is therefore descriptive and should be available to be used by everybody. The judge does not agree. SPA might be descriptive for a wellness centre, but not for cosmetics and care products. Because of the prominent place (due to the use of colors and formats) of the word SPA in the Kruidvat trademarks, consumers might link them to the well-known SPA trademark. Conclusion: infringement. The trademark SPA SECRETS is invalid and the products may no longer be sold, with a € 250 penalty for each infraction.

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?