MEXX a boy’s name?

In 2017, Mexx International acquired all IP rights of the former lifestyle brand Mexx. In doing so it became owner of the many MEXX trademarks for clothing and bed linen. The mark had been sublicensed for bedding until 2015.Globa Sleep has taken over the estate and assets from the bankrupt Mexx Bedding. Globa Sleep offers box spring and mattresses through Facebook and LinkedIn pages of the former company and the website <mexxbedding.nl>. After a summoning of Mexx International to stop this use, Globa Sleep states it will change the trade name and domain. But after a few months there is still plenty to be found online, so a lawsuit is quick to follow.

All claims hold up in court. The counter-argument that Mexx is a boy’s name is irrelevant. Globa Sleep doesn’t use it as a boy's name, but for selling similar products. Advertising via Facebook and LinkedIn must also stop. The fact that the social media accounts are held by former employees is for the account of Globa Sleep. It has bought the estate including all goodwill and e-mail addresses. For that reason Globa Sleep is liable for all online use. The court assumes that the company can claim the relevant former employees’ profiles to put an end to this.

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?