The world upside down - Blokker tent design infringement Zhengte tent

It is a common thought among entrepreneurs that IP rights have no value in China. Nowadays, this (mis-) conception is completely outdated. In 2015 Chinese companies filed more than a million patent applications (a third of the total amount of 3 million patent applications worldwide). Whereas American and Japanese companies filed half a million applications each. China is also the number one country regarding trademark registrations. In 2015 a vast number of 2.8 million trademark applications were filed in China. As a result, an increasing number of Chinese companies can be found in the court of law as the demanding party in trademark infringement cases.

In 2012 the Chinese company Zhengte launches a tent with a floating butterfly shaped roof. This unique shape is being protected through a European Union design registration. When the Dutch firm Blokker introduces a similar tent, named Le Sud, the Chinese bring the matter before the court. Claiming infringement of their registered EU design.
First the judge checks if the registered design fulfils the legal requirements (new and individual character), because there are more tents on the market with a butterfly shaped roof. All these versions are different, so the design is new. It has also an individual character, because of its elegant shape, resulting in a distinct overall impression. According to the judge, the registered EU design is valid and this is a major setback for Blokker. The Blokker party tent is nearly identical to the Chinese tent, giving the same overall impression to the customer. As a result, the tent may no longer be sold and Blokker has to compensate the legal costs of the other party.

 

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?