Home
Our team
»
FAQ
»
Publications
»
IP Quiz
»
Our Services
Trademark news
Importance of Logo Registration

Importance of Logo Registration

Spyder Active Sports, an outdoor brand, has secured registration for its logo across a diverse array of outdoor merchandise, spanning sporting goods, watches, bags, and apparel. When a similar logo is filed for clothing, Spyder promptly raises objections. » trademarks
Lego doll valid shape mark

Lego doll valid shape mark

In 1974, Lego made waves in the toy industry with its introduction of construction dolls, setting a new standard for innovation. Recognizing the uniqueness of their design, Lego promptly registered the shape of these dolls as a trademark within the European Union. However, such shape marks are subject to stringent requirements, making them susceptible to challenges from competitors eager to exploit any lapses in trademark protection for their own gain. » trademark-registration
Rituals vs. The Body Shop: Battle of the Brands

Rituals vs. The Body Shop: Battle of the Brands

In 2015, The Body Shop introduced a new skincare line in the Benelux countries named "SECRETS OF THE WORLD," featuring four distinct lines: RELAXING RITUAL, REVITALISING RITUAL, BLISSFUL RITUAL, and FIRMING RITUAL. » advertising-law
The Bulldog rightly claims damages from Red Bull

The Bulldog rightly claims damages from Red Bull

In 2007, Red Bull initiated legal action against the introduction of The Bulldog energy drinks, citing trademark infringement. The contention was that the trademark "The Bulldog" bore resemblance to Red Bull due to the shared element of "BULL". In 2010, the court sided with Red Bull on this. However, The Bulldog contested this decision, escalating the matter to the Supreme Court and eventually the European Court, arguing the legitimacy of their trademark use. They asserted that energy drinks were a natural extension of their offerings in coffee shops and that the trademark had been used in good faith for this purpose over several years. Eventually, The Bulldog's position was vindicated. » trademarks
Trademark Escobar parfum contrary to public order

Trademark Escobar parfum contrary to public order

Authorities have the discretion to reject a trademark application if it contradicts public order and morality. Interestingly, the European trademark office tends to apply a stringent standard in such cases. This became evident when a French trademark registration for the packaging of PARFUMS ESCOBAR encountered hurdles upon extension to the European Union. » trademark-registration
page 1
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 Knowledge Quiz: Scope of Protection of a Referring Trade Name.

In 2018, the plaintiff launches a new company under the name Mobility Next and myrefurbishedcar.nl. Both trade names are duly registered with the Chamber of Commerce (KvK). Additionally, on September 20, 2018, the domain name is also secured. Located in Houten, the company offers used cars with the quality of new ones, primarily mid-range cars, manufactured between 2018 and 2022. On March 5, 2021, the new website is launched, where the company also presents itself under the name MRCar. However, this name is not officially registered in the trade register of the Chamber of Commerce. On May 10, 2021, the defendant registers the domain name and registers the trade name with the Chamber of Commerce as well. This company, located in Berlicum, also deals in used cars, albeit with model years between 2005 and the late 90s, with prices ranging from 500 to 10,000 euros. The plaintiff argues that the defendant's use of the name MRCARS infringes upon its older trade name MRCar. The demand is: the defendant must cease all use of the name MRCARS within four weeks. Not only must the trade name be changed, but also the website, letterhead, advertising, business cards, etc. Additionally, the defendant must bear all legal costs. The defendant disputes this and argues that the plaintiff has no trade name rights to the name MRCar since it is not registered with the Chamber of Commerce. The plaintiff presents itself on the website under the name My Refurbished Car. Moreover, the name MRCar is descriptive and lacks distinctive character, thus providing no protection. Given the significantly different product offerings (types of cars being sold) and the geographic distance (Houten and Berlicum are 50 km apart), there is no risk of confusion. Therefore, the claim should be rejected. Who is right and why?
Play the quiz
»