Ban on Pepsi copycat

Pepsi has been using the Pepsi Globe logo since 1991, consisting of a round sphere with wave shaped surfaces in the colors red, white and blue. Since then, the logo has been restyled a number of times, but the colored wavy surfaces were always continued. According to Forbes Pepsi holds position 29 of the world's most valuable brands. Given the reputation of the brand, it is not surprising that others would like to take advantage of it.

In 2016, Teng Yun International files its logo for soft drinks in England. The logo consists of a blue wave against a red background with a surfer on top of the wave. Pepsi successfully files a cancellation request against this trademark. Although the trademarks are only slightly similar, because of the surfer. Given the reputation and market share of Pepsi however, the consumer will easily assume a link between the marks. Because both logos are used against a blue background and the fact that soft drinks are often purchased without much attention, the products are easily mistaken. The new brand consciously seeks to take advantage of the familiarity of the Pepsi trademarked logo. The infringing trademark is therefore canceled.

trademarks



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?