Babymilk blenders on bol.com

The Baby Bullet is a blender specifically for making baby food. The blender comes with little storage jars and a booklet containing recipes. A happy face is depicted on the accompanying measuring cup. In order to protect the design, the manufacturer has applied for a Registered Community Design registration for this feature.

 

OmniChannel promotes these blenders through home shopping channels on cable TV, while also offering these products through online sales platforms such as <bol.com>. An EAN code is linked to the product. Other providers at <bol.com> may also use that EAN code as long as it is for the same product. Offering a different/similar product is prohibited by <bol.com>, but is it also legally prohibited?


When OmniChannel found out that its Baby Bullet blender is offered for sale on <bol.com> by an unknown seller, they place a trial order. However, they get a different product, the Happy Baby, which is also a blender containing a happy face.

The Court ruled that offering a similar product for sale under the Baby Bullet name (and using their EAN) constitutes an infringement on trademark and design rights. Result: a total ban on offering this product through web shops and sales platforms as well as compensation of damages. (Source image: rechstpraak.nl)

design-law



Latest news
NFT: trademark registrations in the metaverse
Volkswagen trumps cult camper
Adidas: bare breasts and sports bras
Yoko Ono and John Lemon gin
Barbie tackles copycat
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?