Trademark Escobar parfum contrary to public order

Authorities have the discretion to reject a trademark application if it contradicts public order and morality. Interestingly, the European trademark office tends to apply a stringent standard in such cases. This became evident when a French trademark registration for the packaging of PARFUMS ESCOBAR encountered hurdles upon extension to the European Union.


The rationale behind the rejection stems from the association of the mark with the notorious Colombian drug trafficker, Pablo Escobar, known for his extreme cruelty and power. Drawing a parallel with the rejection of the La Maffia brand, PARFUMS ESCOBAR was deemed to glorify crime and drug trafficking, contradicting the foundational values of the European Union and offending universal moral sensibilities.

In light of these considerations, the refusal of the trademark was deemed appropriate as it aligns with the imperative to uphold public order and discourage the glorification of criminal activities.


Latest news
Rituals vs. The Body Shop: Battle of the Brands
The Bulldog rightly claims damages from Red Bull
Abcor team in World Trademark Review 1000
Louis Keijzer passes BBMM exam with flying colours
Competitor registers domain name
Our Clients
Follow Abcor

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?