Copyrights Netherlands - Protection of a concept / format

It is not possible to protect an idea, however, it is possible to protect the idea in its realized form. Because copyright is obtained automatically, it is sometimes unclear which part of an idea / format is protected. Knowing what part of a product is or is not protected may be vital if you intend to base your own products on someone else’s.  

BuurtKadoos sends new residents a box of vouchers from various companies. This way companies can easily introduce themselves to new residents. One of the suppliers discontinues their work with BuurtKadoos and introduces its own (similar) box.
Is this allowed, because a box of cards is after all a common marketing tool? The judge does not agree. He argues that the idea behind BuurtKadoos is a very detailed concept. The concept is realized in a certain way (maps in color, by category, with map and a hole), which leaves other options open. However, not only the box, but the whole concept around it is copyrighted. The defendant copied not only the look of Buurtkadoos, but also its visual elements. Both formats have therefore the same overall impression. Result: infringement.
 

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?