European Trademark office and hijackers - EUIPO.NL and EUIPO.LEGAL

The European Trademark office (OHIM) will change its name on March 23 into EUIPO. Since trademark owners are confronted with many “ghost invoice” (invoices that are fake but claim to be from official organizations), it is important that the domain names are not owned by these people. For this reason OHIM registered the following domain names in the last few months: EUIPO.EU, EUIPO.ORG, EUIPO.NET en EUIPO.ES.

Nothing much more has been registered, though. Right after it was announced that the office would change its name into EUIPO (April of last year) another company already registered EUIPO.NL, EUIPO.UK, and EUIPO.LEGAL. The company claims to use these sites to provide information on the change in regulations. In a response to this the office claims that they will keep a close eye on these websites to ensure there is no misleading taking place. Considering the legal costs involved in this, it would have been much better if the domain names were claimed by the office beforehand.

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?