Misleading and fraudulent Invoices

It remains an evil that we cannot rid: misleading and phantom invoices. When someone applies for a trademark to be registered, the applicant often receives a letter or invoice from a rogue company sooner than one from the authorities. By using highly similar logos, people may think they are dealing with official authorities. Consequence: payments of up to €2,300 are made for publication on a totally meaningless website. A good example of this are the invoices from EUOIP (Not to be confused with the EUIPO).


In addition, companies are spammed by unofficial renewal offers (currently mainly by Levin Nyman & Partners). The amounts charged by such companies are often many times higher than usual. The letters are written quite demandingly. Do not respond to such letters and when in doubt, always call your trademark agency first.


Latest news
Forgetting to register your trademark: time for a rebrand!
Bad Spaniel's parody or trademark infringement
Miffy's sex toys
Monique Granneman partner Abcor
MK Michael Kors - cancellation similar trademark
Our Clients
Follow Abcor

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?