Home
Our team
»
FAQ
»
Publications
»
IP Quiz
»
Our Services
Trademark news
Claiming furniture design

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. » design-law
Nullity design Porsche 911

Nullity design Porsche 911

Two requirements have to be met to claim design protection of a product through a registered design. The design must be new and have its individual character. A product has individual character if it makes a different overall impression from already existing designs. The freedom of the designer plays a role in this (designs may vary a lot or a little). If that freedom is very limited (for example due to technical requirements), smaller differences will be sufficient for a different general impression. The basic shape for the Porsche 911 dates from 1963. Almost every year Porsche makes slight design modifications, for which design rights are claimed. Is this possible? » design-law
Published promotional video lethal to Community Design Petsbelle scratching post

Published promotional video lethal to Community Design Petsbelle scratching post

Petsbelle designs, produces and markets scratching posts. In order to protect the design of its products, the company applies for European design protection. There are two important requirements for a European design registration. A model must be novel and have its own character. Novelty is often a problem. Many companies first want to test the waters before incurring the costs to claim their rights. In the European Union it is therefore possible to claim design rights up to twelve months after first disclosure. However this grace term is hard. » design-law
Chinese scooter lethal for Multimox - novelty European Union designs

Chinese scooter lethal for Multimox - novelty European Union designs

Many companies register the design of new products in the EU with a Community Design. This allows counterfeiting to be tackled easily and the company maintains a monopoly on this design. However not every design can be claimed just like that. The design must be novel and have its own character (something creative). However, this requirement of novelty applies worldwide and the authorities in the EU do not actively check this. So the applicant should always check first with the design team (or the manufacturer) if the design is actually new. If this is not the case, third parties can easily cancel the rights. » design-law
End of Crocs model protection

End of Crocs model protection

The outer appearance of a product can be claimed with a registered design. There are two requirements for this. The design must be novel and have an individual character. The requirement of novelty often forms a problem. At the product launch, it is not immediately clear whether the product will become a success. That is why in the EU one can still apply for a registered design for up to 12 months after the first publication, but this is a very tough deadline. » design-law
« Previous
page 3
Next »
Our Clients
ABCHronicle
Abcors ABChronicle no 50 Abcors ABChronicle no 50
Read this issue online »
Subscribe to newsletter »
Follow Abcor
IP Quiz
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?
Play the quiz
»