Conceptual meaning Kordaat Kornuit - trademarks similar?

It’s no secret that Lidl regularly has private labels that have striking similarity to those of well-known A-brands. Think of Zagerman sausages (vs Stegeman) and Duetti chocolate spread (vs. Duo Penotti). Only rarely do these teasers actually make it to court. However, this spring the judge had to rule on a new trademark for beer.

Since 2013, Grolsch has been marketing beer under the name KORNUIT. Various trademarks have been registered for this beer, including a word mark. When Lidl introduces a lager with the name KORDAAT, Grolsch takes Lidl to court. Grolsch argues that the trademarks are similar. The beginning is identical (KOR) and emphasis is placed on the beginning of a trademark. Both trademarks have the same length (seven letters), end with -T and consist of two syllables. Lidl's main defence is that the marks clearly have a different meaning. Dutch word Kornuit translates as 'buddy' whereas kordaat means 'determined'. This clear conceptual difference rules out the possibility of any similarity between the trademarks.

The logical thing for the judge would have been to rule on the conceptual difference first, because it is the only potentially successful argument for Lidl. However, despite the fact that Grolsch disputes that there is a conceptual difference, arguing that the average consumer does not understand the meaning of kornuit, (the archaic word is listed to be removed from the Dutch dictionary), the court miraculously does not take this into account.

The court ruled in this case with an unusual motivation, disregarding of the line of reasoning set out in recent case law. Most striking is the reasoning that the trademarks have little visual similarity, due to the letters 'NUI' and 'DAA' at the end. The similarity between the two trademarks is so small that there can be no confusion among the public. The claim was rejected.

An incomprehensible decision. Fortunately, Grolsch appealed. It will be interesting is to see how this appeal develops. Almost immediately after the decision, Lidl (of course entirely coincidentally…) started a huge off line campaign in order to load the word KORDAAT. In every commercial break we are told that Kordaat is the beer for tough guys. We are wondering if and to what extent this mega media exposure will influence the case.

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?