Ikea lamp not derived from Proplamp - knowledge and unfair competition

An idea itself cannot be protected, only its implementation can. The shape of a product can be protected by copyrights or design rights. If these rights are not available, in the Netherlands one can rely on the regime of unfair competition to protect the shapes of its products. Especially in the case of counterfeiting this ground has been invoked on a regular base. However, what if a third party, by coincidence, develops the same idea independently?

This is the main question in the Proplamp case. In 2010 Margje Teeuwen designs the Proplamp, a preshaped lamp that can be further shaped by the customer. De lamp was sold to the Gummbar in Amsterdam. In 2013 it is succeeded by a synthetic version.

In 2014 Ikea enters the market with a similar lamp and the question arises if this lamp was developed independently or derived from Teeuwen’s lamp. De judge is convinced that Ikea did not know of the existence of the Proplamp. Therefore, the introduction of the lamp is not a case of unfair competition.
The whole case would probably have been judged differently if Teeuwen had registered the lamp as a design. In that case, the similarity of the overall impression would have been the key factor.


Latest news
Royal Dutch and the Royal predicate
Arctic Cat infringes Black Panther
The Rubik Cube and freeriding
Naughty commercials Radio 538 – campaign immoral and lack of good taste?
Queengarden motorbike infringement of European design Honda


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?
Follow Abcor