Rumag and the gray space - copyright infringement?

Dutch TV host Arjan Lubach mercilessly exposed the practices of RUMAG last season. Rumag markets T-shirts with famous quotes translated literally, in ALLCAPS separated by dots instead of spaces. This firm’s owner is quoted claiming that there can be no copyright infringement when translating quotes from others, as this would be gray space. Is this correct or is this really a bullshit story?

The EU Court has ruled years ago that headlines consisting of eleven words can be considered as copyrighted. The criterion is that it must be a creation of the mind (in short, that creative choices have been made and that it is not just a banal sentence).

The fact that it is translated from English to Dutch makes no difference, neither do the dots between the words. So there is nothing gray about this. Source image: Bron beeld: www.thebestsocial.media-nl

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?