Hakuna matata and colonialism

The Lion King is launched in 1994 by Disney. To prevent parasitic use, the company registers the film title and logo as a trademark. Also songs titles from the film score, like “Hakuna matata”, are trademarked (for T-shirts). With the upcoming relaunch of the film this year, Disney is suddenly involved in a riot. The petition website <change.com> demands cancellation of the 1994 mark (the petition was signed more than 180,000 times). The trademark means 'no problem' in Swahili language. By this trademark registration, Disney would claim ownership of a piece of African cultural heritage. The petition’s initiator sees this as insult and disrespect for the African population.

The Lion King is launched in 1994 by Disney. To prevent parasitic use, the company registers the film title and logo as a trademark. Also songs titles from the film score, like “Hakuna matata”, are trademarked (for T-shirts). With the upcoming relaunch of the film this year, Disney is suddenly involved in a riot. The petition website <change.com> demands cancellation of the 1994 mark (the petition was signed more than 180,000 times). The trademark means 'no problem' in Swahili language. By this trademark registration, Disney would claim ownership of a piece of African cultural heritage. The petition’s initiator sees this as insult and disrespect for the African population.

From a trademark law perspective, Disney does nothing wrong. With the registration, the company wants to prevent the sale of clothing by third parties under this trademark. No claim is made on the expression itself. That nuance is completely lost in the online discussion. As is the fact that the trademark has already been registered 61 times by third parties around the world, in the hope of being able free ride on the success of The Lion King. As a company, one should be aware of the sensitivities in the registration of images and expressions that belong to the cultural heritage (such as ALLAH, JESUS and the Night-Watch etc.). Sometimes it is better to choose an alternative. (Source image: TMDN.org)

trademark-registration



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?