Jägermeister bottle and glass, photos or dotted lines European Design registration, European tradema

In order to register a product as a design, a number of images should be filed, which basically explain what the design actually looks like. Not a great deal of other demands need to e fulfilled. Almost every design filing is accepted. Validity problems just arise in case of conflicts. However, one of the few demands that are required of the images is that they have a neutral background. Not too difficult to overcome, but in sometimes it apparently is.

Recently, a design application for cups in the name of the firm Jägermeister has been denied. The images displayed a bottle and a glass. The court judged that the refusal was legitimate, because the Locarno classification (a glass) did not coincide with the images. Jägermeister should have used dotted lines for the bottle , if they really wanted it to be displayed as well. In this case it was not clear what the protection was claimed for, so the application was rightfully denied. Therefore, prevent these type of problems and use the expertise of a recognized European Trademark Attorney. (Image: fictional similar erroneous picture- source image: TeWe)

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?