Bulldog - why trademark a logo?

In the Netherlands we have a very quick procedure in place to get an immediately enforceable banning order issued by court (the so called Art. 1019e). However, recently courts have become somewhat reluctant to grant such a request, in fact it is almost never granted anymore, the problem being that the opposite party has no right of speech. Only in the case of an obvious infringement this measure is sometimes still granted.

The Bulldog logo is registered as a trademark. Not only for the services of a so called “coffee shop” (a place where soft drugs are sold legally in the Netherlands), but also for accessories such as weed grinders. When Magic Leaf starts selling grinders with a very similar logo, Bulldog objects. Because the other party does not agree to hand over inventory and is not willing to sign a waiver, Bulldog starts such a ban procedure. It’s important, because this will prevent Magic Leaf from selling out stock before the actual lawsuit.

Court agrees that the Bulldog logo is a well-known trademark. The figurative marks are quite similar and the consumer will associate the offered goods with the popular shop. So the court grants the request for a direct prohibition plus a EUR 5,000 penalty per violation. Therefore one should not only file a wordmark, but consider filing their logo as well, at least if this is distinctive.

trademark-registration



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?