Home
Our team
»
FAQ
»
Publications
»
IP Quiz
»
Our Services
Trademark news
Recognition - why it is still relevant

Recognition - why it is still relevant

After almost two years, my role as the chairman of the BMM has come to an end. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to achieve all the goals I have set. The recurring theme in my work has always been recognition. Recognition that intellectual property rights are crucial for the existence of businesses. But also recognition that BMM members, including IP lawyers, in-house lawyers, and BMM-recognized trademark and design attorneys are specialists. This is all the more important in order to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, especially given the many crooks that seem to pop up constantly.

 

After almost two years, my role as the chairman of the BMM has come to an end. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to achieve all the goals I have set. The recurring theme in my work has always been recognition. Recognition that intellectual property rights are crucial for the existence of businesses. But also recognition that BMM members, including IP lawyers, in-house lawyers, and BMM-recognized trademark and design attorneys are specialists. This is all the more important in order to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, especially given the many crooks that seem to pop up constantly.

Although there is still no official register for trademark- and design attorneys, I sincerely hope that businesses and institutions will realize the necessity of working with specialists. BMM members guarantee a high-quality performance of their work, whether they’re an IP lawyer or a BMM-recognized trademark attorney.

The fact that anyone working today as a librarian or a car dealer, can promote themselves tomorrow as a trademark attorney and have themselves registered with the official authorities is simply not in anyone’s best interest, especially for small and medium-sized businesses. It also harms the position of the IP profession in general. Therefore, recognition remains an important issue today, as well as for the future.

Recognition of our profession can only happen if we as companies provide our employees with the space to be who they are. Inclusivity is a hot topic now and I hope that we, as the BMM and as individual members, can create the right conditions so that our employees feel safe, regardless of their nationality, language, religion, skin colour, gender, or sexual orientation.

I am pleased to hand over the BMM chairman's position to Francois Uyttenhove, knowing that he has a great and skilled team surrounding him. I am excited to see how he will reach and shape the objectives of our organisation. I want to thank everyone for the trust they’ve given me and for the wonderful collaboration over the past years. I hereby hand over the chairman's hammer.


(Final speech as BMM chairman on March 23, 2023)

other-general

Secondment - temporary support
»


Latest news
Abcor acquires Anchor Intellectual Property client portfolio
Christmas with M&S and Aldi
There is Only One NIELSON
False Hope for Descriptive Marks
Social media and the Olympics
Our Clients
ABCHronicle
Abcors ABChronicle no 53
Read this issue online »
Subscribe to newsletter »
Follow Abcor
IP Quiz
claimant
defendant
claimant
defendant

IP Knowledge Quiz Designs

The plaintiff specializes in online sales of children's bicycles. In safeguarding its rights, the company has registered the design of these bicycles under Community Design. Through a multiple design registration, the company secures the rights for 10 new versions of its children's bicycles simultaneously under Community Design. Subsequently, when the defendant introduces a similar bicycle, legal proceedings ensue. Among the various claims, the plaintiff alleges infringement of its design rights, which in turn is contested by the defendant. A design must possess novelty and individual character. The defendant states that the design lacks novelty, as elements of this design are already present in various existing bicycles. Essentially, the defendant's bicycles reproduce these elements, resulting in a lack of individual character. According to the defendant, the community designs are thus invalid. Even If the plaintiff's designs should be valid, the defendant argues that its bicycle deviates sufficiently. The defendant argues that the plaintiff has sought protection for more or less similar designs in the multiple design registration. Apparently, the plaintiff believes that these designs differ enough to create a different overall impression. The defendant's bicycles deviate just as much, thus creating a different overall impression (the so-called doctrine of equivalents argument). The question arises: are the plaintiff's bicycles valid designs despite comprising known aspects from various bicycles, or does the defendant's design exhibit sufficient deviation, thereby enabling the invocation of the doctrine of equivalents concerning the multiple design registration? The court determines that designers of children's bicycles enjoy considerable freedom in their designs. Consequently, if another bicycle lacks significant distinctions, it will quickly evoke a similar overall impression for the informed user, thereby lacking individual character. The comparison is drawn between the new design (the AMIGO bicycles from T.O.M.) and an older existing design (bicycle). To prove that a design is not new, you cannot, as Prijskiller (the defendant) asserts, mosaic together various elements. Therefore, as a defendant, you cannot argue that a design is not new because its characteristics are present in various different products (see also the judgment Karen Millen). If, as a designer, you combine different aspects from multiple designs for the first time into a new product, then this is simply a new and valid design. This is the case with the AMIGO bicycle. The design is upheld as valid. The AMIGO Magic bicycle features a unique tubular frame, rendering it novel. The bicycle is further distinguished by the name MAGIC, the chain guard design, and accessories such as a basket, handlebar streamers, and doll seat. Prijskiller contends that its frame shape differs (being thicker) and that the drawings are positioned differently. Additionally, Prijskiller highlights the distinct color scheme; however, TOM has registered the designs in line drawings, thus disregarding this element in the evaluation. Nevertheless, several similarities are apparent. Both bicycles exhibit an almost identical pattern of butterflies and flowers, positioned nearly identically on the frame. Furthermore, the name MAGIC is depicted in the same font and placement on the chain guard. Consequently, this bicycle fails to evoke a different overall impression for the informed user. The designer's extensive creative freedom in designing children's bicycles means that the differences highlighted by Prijskiller are minor and inconspicuous. Prijskiller's invocation of the doctrine of equivalents is likewise dismissed. The court opines that this case pertains to models concurrently deposited by T.O.M. This circumstance precludes the invocation of the "doctrine of equivalents" because, in compliance with the regulations regarding novelty, individual character, and the grace period, the various models cannot diminish each other's novelty or individual character, nor their scope of protection. In essence, in simultaneous (multiple) deposits, the "doctrine of equivalents" holds little significance. Consequently, these 2Cycle Magic bicycles fail to impart a different overall impression for the informed user. The designer's extensive freedom in designing children's bicycles and the minor differences highlighted by Prijskiller render the infringement claim upheld.
Play the quiz
»