Yellow stitching Dr. Martens valid position mark

Ever since the 1960s, Dr. Martens has been selling their boots. A signature element of their brand is the contrasting thick yellow stitching at the edge of the sole. Given the fact that the yellow stitching acts as an identifier (much like Louboutin's red sole or the red label on Levi's jeans), Dr. Martens has registered this as a position mark to be able to ward off piggyback riders.

 

When Van Haren launched a similar shoe, a lawsuit ensued. Van Haren claimed that the yellow stitching cannot be registered, and filed a cancellation procedure at the Benelux trademark registry against the trademark.

The court ruled that the chances of success are small, referring to many publications about the characteristic yellow stitching in fashion magazines since the 1990s. It became clear that the public now perceives this feature as a trademark, as opposed to an ornament, as Van Haren claims. It is irrelevant that Van Haren’s stitching looks slightly more copper- or gold colored. The stitching constitutes an infringement. The result: a ban for Van Haren.

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?