Trademark news

Opposition lost as a result of Brexit

Brexit became a fact at the end of 2020. The consequences of this work in all directions. EU trade marks were automatically split in a national UK trademark (implicating double maintenance costs for the applicant). English lawyers are no longer entitled to act as representative and file EU trade marks (this must be done by a lawyer within the EU). But it also has big implications for pending issues. » trademarks

Washington Redskins the story continues

For years people have been fighting against the name WASHINGTON REDSKINS. In 1993, the National Congress of American Indians stated that the club name is derogatory and racist to Native Americans. For that reason, a request to cancel various Redskins trademarks was granted in 2014. However, the club's owner, Dan Snyder, was unwilling to even consider changing the name. » trademark-registration

No logo HelloFresh

The trademark application for the HelloFresh logo has been opposed successfully by the Czech company Linea Nivnice. It argued that the HelloFresh logo is confusingly similar to its word mark and logo HELLO. The Board of Appeal agrees with the European trademark authorities. But how is that possible? Can a company just claim to own a general word like HELLO? » trademarks

Surviving with Miel Gibson

In February, Chilean teacher Yohana Agurto lost her job. Being a single mother of four, her situation got even worse when Chile went into lockdown due to the Corona outbreak. But all of a sudden she had a brilliant idea when she saw a picture of Mel Gibson somewhere online. She still had a lot of organic honey in her basement. A new brand was born: Miel Gibson ("miel" being Spanish for honey). A picture of the actor taken from the movie Braveheart was used on the label. Sales were not booming, but it paid the bills and the kids could eat, so she told the New York Times. » trademarks

Milka misses the mark – Ritter Sport chocolate bars valid shapemark

Shapemarks are not uncommon in the chocolate industry. Think of Toblerone's triangular shape, Tony Chocolonely's unevenly spaced blocks and last but not least the famous KitKat bar. Ritter Sport has been making square chocolate-bars since 1932: a small square piece of chocolate that fits perfectly into a sports jacket without breaking. The product has long been successful and to prevent imitation, the company had the shape of the packaging registered as a trademark in 1993. » trademark-registration
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?