VidaGra Stimulating or sickening? Coat-tail riding on well-known trademark

VIAGRA is one of Pfizer’s main trademarks. Since its introduction in 1998, the product is a great success with a yearly revenue of little over a billion Euros. The product is available on medical prescription. However, success has its downside, when third parties try to take a piece of the pie as well. Discussing erection problems with a doctor might be a bit of an embarrassment for many men, which is probably the reason for a flourishing online trade of the product. Research reveals that 60% of the amount of pills sold, is being obtained via illegal trade.

Recently, the sexually stimulating capsules, named VidaGra, have been introduced on the market. Offering a good alternative for a greatly needed and wanted product, like VIAGRA, is no problem, as long as it is marketed under a clearly different trademark. This way the consumer will not be confused, competition will cause quality to improve and prices to go down. Nevertheless, this case is a clear case of infringement of trademark rights, taking advantage of the possibly embarrassed consumers. Hopefully, Pfizer will put an end to this.

trademarks



Latest news
Rituals vs. The Body Shop: Battle of the Brands
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
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?