Influencers social media and well-known brands

Advertisers are keen on using influencers to promote their products on social media. Some vloggers’ reach is immense and they are ideal for pushing a product into the attention of the target group. Does this now also have trademark law consequences?

 

SUGARBEAR is a brand for vitamin preparations and objects to the launch of a competing product BEAUTY BEAR. They argue that the signs are similar and the products identical. But most importantly: the SUGAR BEAR brand is known to the target group due to the very successful social media campaign in Europe.

SUGAR BEARs Instagram account has 1.6 million followers. Influencers like Kim Kardashian (and many others with millions of followers) have previously promoted the brand and products on their own Instagram and YouTube. Many articles about this very successful online campaign are submitted in support of the claim.


The trademark authorities therefore come to the conclusion that the SUGARBEAR brand is well-known within the target group. It is not enough that the first words are different. The BEAUTY BEAR brand has been rightly refused.

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?