European Community Designs - Prior art, novelty of doll houses

Doll houses for children have been around for many years. However, new variations are constantly coming onto the market. In 2005 Henkes  introduced  a new doll house named DAAAK and applied for design protection in the European Union. Hajo introduced a similar house on the market in 2010.  

Henkes believed that this house was an infringement of her rights. Hajo claims that it was not. The houses were sufficiently different, but more importantly, the whole model of Henkes is not valid because it is not new. In 2004, a similar house was already registered, the Langley house.
The judge does not agree.  The DAAAK-house is clearly new. This is evident from the fronts and the overflow of the roof in the walls. The house therefore has a different overall impression. This is not the case with Hajo’s house. This house has the same general impression as the DAAAK. The distance that keeps the house Hajo DAAAK house, is much smaller than DAAAK vs. Langley. Result: violation and a prohibition.
 

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?