Home
Our team
»
FAQ
»
Publications
»
IP Quiz
»
Our Services
Trademark news
Levin Nyman - Deceptive renewal offers

Levin Nyman - Deceptive renewal offers

Many EU trademark holders have been approached by a firm named Levin Nyman & Partners recently. This Finnish company offers renewals of EU trade marks at excessive prices. If signed off, payment is demanded; even if the client changes his mind. The Finnish company is not registered with any Chamber of Commerce; in fact, the company is not located at the office address stated on the letterhead. The phone number (masked by a QR code) is not in use. » other-general
D-Reizen: bankruptcy and trademark rights

D-Reizen: bankruptcy and trademark rights

As a result of the pandemic last April, the curtain dropped for D-reizen, one of the largest tour operators in the Netherlands. On March 12, however, all trademark rights were suddenly assigned to another entity, keeping the rights outside the bankruptcy. Immediately the question arose whether this constitutes a fraudulent act (a transfer of assets that is disadvantageous to creditors)? Probably yes, given the fact that parties are facing each other in court. » trademark-registration
Ban on Nike Satanshoe

Ban on Nike Satanshoe

This spring, rapper Lil Nas X not only launched his new video, but also 666 pairs of “Satan shoes” ($1,018), a joint project with artist collective MSCHF. Original Nike Air Max shoes were slightly modified for this. A pentagram was added to the laces, as well as a reference to Luke 10:18 (the fall of the devil) and a drop of human blood combined with ink on the sole. After the announcement on Twitter, the numbered pairs sold out in the blink of an eye. Not to the liking of Nike, but could they do something? » trademarks
The success of 25 years EU trademark

The success of 25 years EU trademark

This April 1st, it was 25 years ago that the first EU trademark was filed in the European Union. What is quite common now, was a sensation at the time. Until then, companies could only register their trademark rights nationally (so per country). The EU trade mark was launched to promote free movement of goods in the European Union. With one application, a trademark owner received immediate protection in all countries of the European Union. » trademark-registration
Babymilk blenders on bol.com

Babymilk blenders on bol.com

The Baby Bullet is a blender specifically for making baby food. The blender comes with little storage jars and a booklet containing recipes. A happy face is depicted on the accompanying measuring cup. In order to protect the design, the manufacturer has applied for a Registered Community Design registration for this feature. » design-law
« Previous
page 18
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
»