Royal Dutch and the Royal predicate

There are strict rules regarding the use of the terms ‘Royal’ or ‘purveyor to the Royal household’. These are titles, granted by the King to companies with a prominent position in the Netherlands. Further conditions are that a company must be at least a hundred years old, have no less than a hundred employees and have a formidable reputation. The grant by the King is a favour, not an enforceable right. Companies that use these titles, without the King’s permission, give the impression that all conditions are successfully met. In order to prevent any abuse (and to protect the intellectual property rights of the Royal House), our former Queen Beatrix established a foundation.

The company, Royal Dutch Holding, is an investment company mainly active in North Africa and the Middle East. The Royal predicate has not been granted to this company. According to Dutch tradename law it is forbidden to use a misleading tradename. It is obvious, that the Dutch word ‘Koninlijke’ for Royal would be misleading if the title is not granted. The same goes for its English translation, Royal, because the use of English is quite common in the Netherlands. The company is therefore condemned to refrain from using the names Royal or Royal Dutch, accompanied with a penalty of 1000,- per day in case of violation.

tradenames

Latest news
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
Competitor registers domain name
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?