Happy Cocooning – photo or drawing?

Designs are often filed with the use of drawings, however, if texture or material is essential to the design, it is sometimes better to use photos. Happy Cocooning sells table furnaces. The Cocoon tables are massive square or round composite garden tables with a gas burner assembled inside them.

The tables have a concrete look to them because they have been sand waxed. At the bottom of the table there is a small caving, which makes it look as if the table is standing on legs. Because the material is an important part of the look of the table photos have been used for the design application. When a similar product was introduced on the market (the Cosy Living Lounge), a legal procedure soon followed. The court decided that the distinctive elements have been copied (including the concrete look) and that there is therefore an infringement.

design-law



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?