Washington Redskins the story continues

For years people have been fighting against the name WASHINGTON REDSKINS. In 1993, the National Congress of American Indians stated that the club name is derogatory and racist to Native Americans. For that reason, a request to cancel various Redskins trademarks was granted in 2014. However, the club's owner, Dan Snyder, was unwilling to even consider changing the name.

 

In light of all the events of the past year, the tide now seems to be turning. Main sponsor FedEx threatened not to pay the remaining amount of the sponsorship deal (45 million) and PepsiCo, Nike and the Bank of America also started to raise the issue.

Reason enough to change the name to Washington Football Team. This gives the club the opportunity to look for a new name, a name without negative associations and which can be used freely.

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?