End of Crocs model protection

The outer appearance of a product can be claimed with a registered design. There are two requirements for this. The design must be novel and have an individual character. The requirement of novelty often forms a problem. At the product launch, it is not immediately clear whether the product will become a success. That is why in the EU one can still apply for a registered design for up to 12 months after the first publication, but this is a very tough deadline.

Crocs filed for a design registration in the EU for its plastic shoe in 2004. The French company Gifi Diffusion initiated a nullity procedure against this, because the product had already been on the market for two years in the USA by then. The product was promoted through a website in 2002, was a big success at a major international boat show in Florida in 2002 and had been for sale in almost all of the United States. Consequence: it is plausible that shoe manufacturers from the EU have seen this plastic shoe before. The design rights are therefore canceled. Crocs can no longer invoke these.

design-law



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?