OK.nl – Supreme Court gives a definitive answer

A legal battle has been going on for years about the very nice domain name <ok.nl>. Gaos has registered this domain name as far back as 1999. Fuelplaza operates petrol stations and has owned the OK logo since 2003. The company uses the domain name <okolie.nl> online. The domain name <ok.nl> is howeverpreferred. First the company attempts to buy the domain name. If this does not work, several lawsuits follow, up to the Dutch Supreme Court. Gaos plans to use the domain name for a social purpose, it claims, but it still has no active website on the URL. Is that allowed?

The courts have ruled on this before. Not actually using a domain name is not enough reason to be forced to transfer the domain name. Unfortunately, the Court has not ruled on the descriptiveness of the name and that there are also dozens of other trademarks with OK. The Supreme Court has now put an end to all discussion. It rejects the appeal of FuelPlaza. An active website is not necessary. Only one option remains, get in touch with the holder and offer to buy the domain name at a reasonable price.

internet-online-branding

Latest news
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
Competitor registers domain name
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?