The rights to protest online - thestyleoutlets.nl

Since 1996, NEINVER has opened a variety of outlet stores in (mainly South) Europe, under the name THE STYLE OUTLETS (registered as a European Union trademark). The company wants to open an outlet in the Netherlands as well, in the town Halfweg near Amsterdam. Local entrepreneurs are not pleased and register the domain name thestyleoutlets.nl. The site´s aim is to protest (mentioning pro´s and cons) against the Style outlets, using the title “Action committee NO to The Style Outlets”.

NEINVER initiates a procedure to claim the domain name, because it is planned to open the outlet in 2017. Leading to the question, is this possible? What about freedom of speech?

The question is judged in a procedure before the WIPO. There is a right to protest indeed. This may also include the use of another´s trademark. However, this right is not unlimited. The mere registration of a domain name that is identical to the other party´s trademark is one bridge to far. If the action committee had chosen for a domain name like saynotothestyleoutlets.nl , then NEINVER would have little possibilities to act. Because the domain name is identical to the trademark, it has to be transferred to NEINVER.

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?