Puma & cat like predators

Well-known trademarks enjoy extensive protection. This is actually necessary to prevent other companies from free-riding on the coat-tails of their success. Many free-rider companies think they can get away with this by using a similar logo, but with a different brand name. However, that doesn’t stick.

Puma has been manufacturing sports attire for well over 65 years and it is present in more than 120 countries. The iconic leaping puma is one of the important distinguishing marks of the brand. If the company discovers that the brand EXCESSIVE offers sports clothing via Facebook and internet for sale with a cougar jumping downward, Puma starts an injunction. The judge awards all claims. The logos are clearly similar. There is a risk of confusion and the consumer may think that the products originate from the same company. Consequence: a total ban on the mark’s use. And should a webpage be caught online after two days from the ruling, the company faces € 2,500 damages (per page found). Source image : IE-forum.nl

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?