Copyrights infringement - Mediq and unlicensed use

Design agencies often provide clients an exclusive license for use of house styles. The aim of this is that any follow up work is also being done by the agency.  The design agency,  SVT, of pharmacy MEDIQ developed all the in store material and new house style. Subsequently, as is usual in projects like this SVT provided an exclusive licence MEDIQ for use of the newly developed material.  

When Mediq opens offices in Poland and Belgium in 2008, SVT tried to arrange additional agreements on the use and continued work.
Mediq takes the position that it does not infringe the copyright of SVT and therefore do not have to pay anything.
SVT cancelled the license and started a lawsuit. The court came to the conclusion that the new use falls outside of the scope of the license. The license is legally terminated, but everything is still used in the Netherlands by Mediq. In accordance with the of the general terms of the license three times the fee paid fee (over € 1.8 million) had to be paid to SVT. The result: a ban on use, to pay costs and damages (more than € 65,000).
 

copyright



Latest news
Rituals vs. The Body Shop: Battle of the Brands
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
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?