Claiming furniture design

Last year, the EU Court passed an important ruling on the relationship between design law and copyright. It was indicated that copyright does not always provide the same protection as a design right. Copyright can only be invoked if an intellectual creation is concerned. This seems to put an end to the ultra-low threshold that was applicable in the Netherlands and with this ruling the importance of claiming design through a design registration has increased considerably.

Spieghel Trading applied for design protection in 2019 for a new line of furniture, the Blackbone series. Characteristics: the elegantly veneered brushed black oak, the wood-like structure, narrow wood strips in a herringbone pattern and, the transparent appearance and the stainless steel piece that gives the impression to float. When Decor Living comes with a similar set (Black Gold), a lawsuit follows.

The argument in defense that the design rights belong to the manufacturer does not hold. Spieghel holds the design registration and is therefore considered to be the party entitled.

The defense that the furniture is not new is also rejected. The furniture deviates sufficiently from the state of the art. The model rights are valid. Decor furniture does not make a different overall impression. Result: the ban is fully upheld.

design-law



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?