Competitor’s trademark as Adword

Google often offers trademarks from competitors as Adword, however, does this mean you may actually use them too? City Box offers (temporary) storage space for goods. The company has registered her logo and the word CITY BOX as a trademark in the Benelux. Boxaround is a competitor. Through the internet this company also offers storage space for rent.In order to promote its services online Boxaround starts a campaign with Google. The words CITY BOX and CITYBOX are purchased as Adwords in order to promote the online campaign.

If a consumer uses the word CITY BOX or CITYBOX when searching on Google he would encounter the following ad: “City Box – boxaround.nl www.boxaround.nl/city+box Boxaround 24/7 availability. Now 30% Discount.” City Box objects to this use on the basis of its trademark rights and is supported by the court’s decision. The trademark (CITY BOX) does not belong to Boxaround and is being used as a Google Adword to promote Boxaround´s products. In this case it is difficult for the average internet user to ascertain what the relationship is between the trademark and the party that uses it. After all, why is the Adword CITY BOX used? Is Boxaround affiliated with City Box, or are the companies in some way connected. That impression is magnified by the use of CITY BOX in the ad itself. The court therefore decides that there is an infringement. Use of the trademark CITY BOX as Google Adword is prohibited and Boxaround has to pay a portion of City Box´s legal expenses.

internet-online-branding



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?