ANWB: domain names dispute

Within three months, 34 domain names containing the ANWB brand were registered. In case of domain name infringement, there are two options to put a stop to this. Bringing a case to court or starting a simple administrative procedure at WIPO.


The problem at hand is the multitude of different owners. Can you now claim all the domain names in one procedure? The answer is yes, if you can if you can prove that only one party is behind it. ANWB proves this without any issues.

All domain names in question consist of the ANWB trade mark combined with a generic word, such as: administration, reminder, invoice. The domain names were applied for within three months with the same registrar and use the same privacy service (to disguise the identity of the real holder). The domain names refer to misleading websites or websites removed due to phishing or malware. The same postal code is used everywhere, while the addresses are different and some registrants' names do not seem to exist. In addition, the domain name holder has not filed an appeal. The complaint also meets the other conditions, so all domain names will be transferred to ANWB in accordance.


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

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?