Telephone scammers offer domain name registrations

A Dutch timber company claims it has been contacted by a company called “the Trademark Office” in 2018 with an offer to register it company name as <.com> and have it redirected to the <.nl> website for ten years for an amount of €297,- (per year). An audio recording was made, just form the moment the company agrees to the proposal (at the end of the conversation).

After a few days The timber company sends a registered letter in order to cancel the contract for deception and error. The person calling had claimed that this “Trademark Office” is an independent organization overseeing internet domains and that a competitor had tried to capture the <.com> domain name, but the timber company had a right to first registration.

This false statement led the timber company into accepting the proposal. Of course these were false. A lawsuit follows, because the timber company claims nullity and refuses to pay. In court, Trademark Office denies that these statements had been made, only fails to produce a recordings of the whole conversation.

Court rules that it is to Trademark Offices discretion to record the entire conversation or not, but when later a discussion arises about the content of the call, this is at the risk of the company. For this reason, the judge agrees with the timber company and the contract is nullified for reasons of deception.

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?