Trademark news

Nike stops Max

When Max Verstappen applies for the trademark MAX 1 for clothing, Nike objects based on its trademark AIR MAX. In the opposition proceedings, Nike wins. Max Verstappen did not appeal this. This is unfortunate, because there is much to be said against the ruling. » trademarks

Ban on KATY PERRY

Famous artists, movie stars, athletes et cetera often register their names as trademarks. Not only for the services they provide under that name, but often also to start selling merchandise products. For example, almost every pop star now has their own clothing line or that person has licensed the name and/or image to another company. » trademarks

ANWB: domain names dispute

Within three months, 34 domain names containing the ANWB brand were registered. In case of domain name infringement, there are two options to put a stop to this. Bringing a case to court or starting a simple administrative procedure at WIPO. » internet-online-branding

TOBLERONE and the Matterhorn

It is common knowledge that state symbols should not be used in trademarks. The reason being that consumers may deem the products/services approved by the government. In Switzerland, a law was passed in 2017 that goes a bit further. » trademark-registration

Brand BIG MAC normally used

The ruling in Supermac's cancellation case against the Big Mac trademark shook trademark law in the European Union. McDonald's relied on its prior trademark Big Mac in the earlier opposition proceedings. Because this mark was older than 5 years, McDonald's had to submit genuine use. The EUIPO found this insufficient. Fortunately, McDonald's appealed and submitted additional evidence. » trademarks
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?