Bayern Munich settles the score

As opposed to the match in the Champions League, Bayern Munich did end up on top in the competition for its logo this year. In 2002, the FC BAYERN MUNCHEN logo was registered in black and white in the EU as a device mark for almost all goods and services. A smart move, because that way the logo can be turned for profit. Many of the club’s sponsors (including a beer brewer) bring products to the market with the logo ride along on the popularity of the team. The logo consists of the name with the pattern of the Bavarian flag in the middle. When another Bavarian brewery comes up with a similar logo, the football club objects

In first instance the suit is lost, but in appeal the football club takes the win after all. The figurative marks are similar, certainly for the non-German public in the EU. The argument in defence that Bayern (Bavaria) and Munich are geographical names is pushed aside because in many languages the regions have a different name (such as Bavaria and Monakovo). Because the logo is registered in black and white, a non-German consumer will fail to recognize the Bavarian flag in it because it is blue. The layout is more or less the same. Consequence: the trademarks are similar.

trademarks



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?