OK tank stations do not get domain name

Fuelplaza exploits gas stations under the name OK. The company registered the logo OK in 1983 in the Benelux. On the internet the company is found at ok-olie.nl. Because ok.nl is a much better name the company approached Goas in 2007, 2013 and 2014 to buy the domain name. This was unsuccessful, and eventually a resolution was sought in court.Fuelplaza invokes its trademark rights. Because there is not an active website, consumers would assume that the company is not active. This may affect the reputation of the company.

The court, however, does not agree. The fact that a company is being disadvantaged because it cannot obtain the corresponding domain name does not affect its reputation. Trademark rights are meant to protect the reputation of a trademark, but they do not grant unlimited rights.


Fuelplaza had another argument, though. It claims to have a better right on the domain name. Gaos is not using it after all. This would be, according to Fuelplaza, illegitimate use of the domain name. The court, however, does not agree with this. Registering a domain name that is similar to a trademark is not illegitimate on and of itself. Gaos’ refusal to sell the domain name for the price offered by Fuelplaze, being a reasonable price, is not a reason. There are many companies that use the name OK, so why would Gaos be obliged to sell the name to Fuelplaza? Furthermore, Fuelplaza can also be found online at ok-olie.nl. The fact that Gaos does not wish to sell is not an abuse of power. There is no obligation to have an actual active website.

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?