Home
Our team
»
FAQ
»
Publications
»
IP Quiz
»
Our Services
Trademark news
Spido: Use of Google Adword infringes competitor’s trademark

Spido: Use of Google Adword infringes competitor’s trademark

The ECJ has already passed rulings on the question whether one can use the competitor's trademark as Google Adword, a number of times. Rule of thumb is: it is allowed unless the origin function of the trademark is impaired. The advertisement must clearly show if there is a relationship between the advertiser and the trademark owner or not. » internet-online-branding
Jägermeister’s Hubertus deer vs silhouette head of a Hubertus deer

Jägermeister’s Hubertus deer vs silhouette head of a Hubertus deer

Les Bordes Golf Club uses a silhouette of the head of a Hubertus deer for their logo. When they file EU trademark protection for this sign, Mast-Jägermeister opposes, invoking its registered logo. This has been registered for a wide range of identical products and services. The EUIPO initially rules that the trademarks don’t infringe, but Jägermeister appeals successfully at the EUIPO’s Board of Appeal. » trademarks
Zeeman underwear and functional nudity

Zeeman underwear and functional nudity

Dutch discounter Zeeman always features a segment of its offerings in their ‘it can be that simple' campaign. After socks and men's underwear, a new commercial runs on women's underwear. Different women in underwear briefly flash on the screen focusing on the buttocks, making it clear that the featured underwear is comfortable and good looking. A complaint is filed deeming the commercials’ imagery negative, tasteless, misogynist and sexist. » advertising-law
Marks & Spencer The Perfect match

Marks & Spencer The Perfect match

Flo Broughton starts a chocolatery named ‘Choc on Choc’ with her father back in 2003. Ever since 2015, they have been selling matches made out of white Belgian chocolate. The words ‘Perfect Match’ are pressed into the chocolate. Marks & Spencer launches an almost identical product with Valentine's Day this year, leaving Flo not amused. » advertising-law
Wendy’s Local David versus Global Goliath

Wendy’s Local David versus Global Goliath

A feud dating back to 1997 has been ongoing between the American fast food chain Wendy's and a local diner in the Netherlands. The local diner trademarked their company name in 1995 for the Benelux. The American chain did previously have a trademark in the Benelux, but that had expired as a result of non-use. When the American chain files for trademark protection in 2015, the Dutch trademark holder successfully objects. For many this sounds almost incomprehensible. How can a local diner stop a multinational chain like Wendy's by simply invoking a Benelux trademark? » trademarks
« Previous
page 13
Next »
Our Clients
ABCHronicle
Abcors ABChronicle no 50 Abcors ABChronicle no 50
Read this issue online »
Subscribe to newsletter »
Follow Abcor
IP Quiz
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?
Play the quiz
»