METCHUP- MAYOCHUP

In 2007, Dennis Perry had registered the trademark METCHUP in the USA for ketchup, mayonnaise and mustard. Perry mixes these sauces in his own kitchen and sells this himself. Since 2010, he has sold 34 bottles. When Heinz launched a similar product under the name MAYOCHUP in 2016, a problem arises.

 

Dennis deemed that Heinz took off with his idea. At launch, a competition was held for a new brand-name. 95 suggestions were received, Metchup being one of the entries. At the end of the campaign, Heinz published an overview on their website with all suggested names depicted on sample bottles. Perry claims this is an infringement.

The court disagreed. Heinz sells the product under the name MAYOCHUP and not under the name METCHUP. Additionally, Heinz never used the name METCHUP in commercial context to promote its product.

But there is another aspect that plays an important role: if a trademark owner invokes a trademark that is subject to obligation of use, he must actually use it. The sale of 34 bottles in about 9 years does not, however, constitute use. For that reason, the Perry brand was cancelled on account of non-use. Registration is a good start to claim Trademark rights, but if you want to enforce them, keep in mind that in most countries one has to use a trademark normally. Otherwise you’ll end up with nothing.

The sale of 34 bottles in about 9 years does not, however, constitute use. For that reason, the Perry brand was cancelled on account of non-use. Registration is a good start to claim Trademark rights, but if you want to enforce them, keep in mind that in most countries one has to use a trademark normally. Otherwise you’ll end up with nothing.

trademarks



Latest news
When can a sound be a trademark?
Red Horse: coat tailing well known trademark
Misleading advertisement for Parodontax toothpaste packaging
Coin pocket Diesel valid positionmark
Valid yellow colormark Kärcher
Our Clients
Follow Abcor
claimant
defendant
claimant
defendant

PURE - MENTOS

MENTOS has been selling chewing gum under the name MENTOS PURE FRESH for several years. In order to protect her rights MENTOS has registered the following trademarks: the logo MENTOS PURE FRESH, the logo MENTOS PURE FRESH 3 and a figurative depiction of the word PURE. Defendant sells chewing gum under the trademark DENTYNE PURE and has registered its logo as a trademark. Infringement or not?