Table in the shape of a diamond

Eichholtz sells furniture in all of Europe. At a exhibition in Paris it shows its new tables. The tables are made of glass in a frame with eight corners (colours in gold and nickel) with a bottom plate made of marble. To protect its rights both tables are filed as European designs. When a similar table appears on the market Eichholtz demands a prohibition on this. The other party claims that the design registrations are not valid. The design would not be new and does not have its own character since it has the same shape as the Ascher-diamond. The main question is whether use of the same design for a different product affects novelty.

The court decides this is not the case. One should look at the type of product concerned and the sector in which it is being used. In this case they are very dissimilar. It is not expected that furniture manufacturers know which shapes are used in a diamond cutting business. The registrations are therefore valid. Since the tables of the other party give the same impression with the informed consumer they are prohibited and a recall also follows.

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?