CrossFit vs CrossBox

Since 2006, the CROSSFIT trademark has been registered in the European Union for fitness training. This fitness program was conceived in America, using car tires and sandbags. The concept and name are licensed to many gyms. When VES (an organization of independent gyms) starts offering a similar training under the name THE CROSS BOX, CrossFit objects to this. 

CrossFit is a well-known trademark and therefore enjoys wide scope of protection. The trademarks are similar and the services identical.

The court disagrees. The claim of a well-known trademark has not been well motivated, because the evidence submitted is focused on America and not the European Union.

The CrossFit brand does not enjoy broad protection because it is deemed somewhat descriptive. CROSS is derived from Cross training (a mix of training forms) and Fit refers to Fitness. Using the word BOX creates sufficient distance. Slightly descriptive names are very attractive from a marketing perspective, but remember that the scope of protection is limited.

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?