The Ivy Bar Glasgow infringement on The Ivy in London

Catering Companies often find it unnecessary to perform a search for their trade name prior to starting their company. This is unwise, because clever catering companies register their name to create a monopoly on the use of it. The Ivy Bar in London is a famous bar where celebrities came, from Marlene Dietrich to Tom Cruise.

The name THE IVY is registered as a trademark. Coat tail riding on the reputation of a company is punished. The owner of The Ivy Bar in Glasgow received a cease and desist letter from the lawyer of The Ivy in London to change the name, after six years. That
the bar was located 600 km away from London and had a totally different appearance, did not matter. The outcome would be very clear, based on trademark law. For that reason the bar is now named Destill. According to the owner, the whole name change cost
him £ 30,000.

tradenames



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?