Hema crocodile infringes on Lacoste after all

There is a sequel to the case concerning Hema’s underwear. The question was if crocodile decorated kids underwear constitutes an infringement on the Lacoste logo. At first, the court ruled it was not. The picture is purely meant as a decoration, the consumer does not see a trademark in it. In the appeal, the coin lands on the other side. Market surveys play a major part in both court cases.

Lacoste’s claim was initially rejected, partly because the market survey was too suggestive. The new survey has been carried out correctly. This one demonstrates that the consumer perceives the image as a trademark , namely Lacoste. Conclusion: A trademark infringement after all.

The ruling clearly shows the importance of registering ones logo separately (besides the name). Exactly to address this “decorative” use. And since it is an EU trademark, the court in The Hague immediately issues a ban for the entire European Union. (Source image: Abcor)

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?