bently-motors-takes-a-hit

Bentley Clothing has been selling garments, such as T-shirts, sweatshirts and hats, in the UK since 1962. Their products sell at prices between £ 25 and £ 45. Bentley Motors, also from the UK, has been known as a car maker under the brand BENTLEY for almost 100 years (its entry level model starting at £ 135,000). In addition to cars, the company sells clothing with the stylized B logo (not using the wordmark Bentley).

When Volkswagen took over Bentley in 1998, it launched a clothing line of its own offering leather jackets at £ 2,400, knitted sweaters at £ 215 and polo shirts at £ 167. From 2000 onwards the wordmark BENTLEY is used for this completely new clothing line. The mentioned clothingcompany approached the car manufacturer offering a license to use the mark. Bentley Motors however does not take that offer. The company even goes as far as to starting a cancellation procedure against the former’s trademark. This claim was denied in 2017.

As a counter-action, the clothing company files suit for a prohibition. The word BENTLEY in the logo being the dominant part, the trademarks are deemed similar and used partly for identical goods. The argument that both trademarks had coexisted for 30 years is also put aside. Competing goods have been offered since 2000 and, due to the cancellation action, there can no longer be any question of peaceful coexistence. The result: a ban on the new line of clothing products from the car maker.

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?