Beverages and hospitality services deemed similar

Companies can object to a new trademark if the signs are similar. The new trademark must also be filed for identical, similar or complementary products. If it concerns completely different products, then there is often no ground for objecting. For example, there are various companies that use the sign AJAX as a brand. Besides the Amsterdam football club, it is used as a brand for cleaning products as well as fire extinguishers. So how far does this similarity stretch?

In 1996, the wordmark HOTEL CIPRIANI is registered as a trademark in the European Union. The trademark is not only filed for hotel services, but also for hospitality services, such as bar services, catering and offering drinks and food for direct use. When the Cipriani family applies for its name CIPRIANI to be registered as a EU trademark for beers in 2013, Hotel Cipriani objects. The EU Court agrees. The trademarks are very similar (the word HOTEL is weakly distinctive). In a hotel, guests can often order drinks, including beer. Beers and hospitality services are therefore deemed similar. The mark was rightly refused, according to the Court of First Instance.

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?