Coke for Miffy

Because of its child friendly character Dick Bruna’s Miffy is often a humorous target. Bruna has more often than not successfully opposed unacceptable parodies on Miffy. For example in 2002 a campaign against rude behavior was revoked for using the same style as Miffy. Since that time, however, the so-called parody-exception has been added to the Copyright Act.

Punt.nl, a Dutch website successfully invoked this exception in a recent case before the Court of Amsterdam. On punt.nl Miffy can be seen sniffing coke, acting as a DJ at a house party and taking party drugs. This all clashes with the character’s child friendly nature. Bruna claims that his work is being maimed by Punt.nl.

The court decided that five out of seven images were acceptable under the parody exception. They were deemed to be clearly humoristic. For two images, however, it was decided that they were too similar to the original Miffy. These images were an infringement. (source image: Boek9.nl)

parody



Latest news
Rituals vs. The Body Shop: Battle of the Brands
The Bulldog rightly claims damages from Red Bull
Trademark Escobar parfum contrary to public order
Abcor team in World Trademark Review 1000
Louis Keijzer passes BBMM exam with flying colours
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?