Monopoly vs Drinkopoly, reputation of a well-known trademark

Drinkopoly is a remarkable game. Basically, the main goal is to drink with your friends. As you can imagine, playing the game is a unique experience every time, because one simply does not remember the previous encounter. The logo speaks for itself, showing a drinking couple, with one of them laying on the ground, completely drunk. When trademark protection is being sought for the logo of Drinkopoly, Hasbro (the producer of Monopoly) opposes the application.

The EUIPO agrees with the fact that Monopoly is a well-known game. The consumer will link the games, which names both end with OPOLY. The use of the trademark DRINKOPOLY damages the reputation of the well-known trademark MONOPOLY. A game that encourages alcohol abuse, does not fit the carefully acquired image which is obtained. As a result, the DRINKOPOLY-logo is refused as a trademark, but it is still for sale online.

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?