Action against ghost invoices

A well-known phenomenon in our business are the so called ghost invoices. Unfortunately they are all too common, even these days. Invoices are sent to trademark owners after they filed their application. In return for a large sum of money the trademark is filed in a database by the ghost invoice sender, a database that is completely useless. All the while the owner believes that he received an invoice from an official organization.

The letters contain the official registration date (name of the owner, filing number and date, logo) in order to increase the chances of fooling the trademark owner. To increase their chances of fooling the trademark owners names and logos that are surprisingly similar to those of the official authorities are used, such as: “European Patent and Trademark Register” or “European Trademark Publication”.
Following Belgium, the Netherlands will now introduce a procedure that allows such false acquisition to be dealt with. The initiative has been approved unanimously by parliament. Until it becomes a final law our advice remains: do not pay and never respond to any suspicious emails or invoices. The rates that are being charged are often a multitude of the normal costs and the amount cannot be reclaimed.

other-general



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?