Trademark news

Spido: Use of Google Adword infringes competitorís trademark

The ECJ has already passed rulings on the question whether one can use the competitor's trademark as Google Adword, a number of times. Rule of thumb is: it is allowed unless the origin function of the trademark is impaired. The advertisement must clearly show if there is a relationship between the advertiser and the trademark owner or not. » internet-online-branding

Insta Gram online coffeeshop

Domain name disputes can often be resolved through a simple administrative (UDRP) procedure. These cases often involve a domain in which the trademark of another party is part. Some companies trust that having their brandname as a domain provides sufficient protection. They often neglect to apply for trademark protection timely. This can have serious consequences. » internet-online-branding

Adword use of competitorís trademark

When is it allowed to use your competitors / market leaders brand as an Adword in an online campaign? In a recent case defendant carried out a comparison test of his own water softener (Aquamag7000) and the Amfa4000 from competitor 24Man. The comparison is positive for the defendants product and the company wants to generate publicity with this result. If the search term Amfa4000 is entered in Google, ads appear with headlines like “Amfa4000 vs Aquamag 7000 - read this before your purchase”. » internet-online-branding

Benelux trademark now accepted for Amazon and Bol.com brand registry

Many businesses sell products online through platforms such as Amazon and Bol.com. If a potential customer is looking for the product online, it is preferable that ends up with the right seller. But what if another company also sells these products under (almost) the same name? » internet-online-branding

Online infringement and court competence

AMS Neve manufactures and sells audio equipment in the United Kingdom. The trademark 1073 is registered in the European Union for recording equipment in class 9. AMS Neve files a lawsuit in England against Heritage Audio from Spain, for selling counterfeit equipment under the mark 1073. As proof, twitter messages and e-mails directed at English consumers are submitted. » internet-online-branding
page 1
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?