HARRY POPPER CONDOMS

HARRY POTTER is one of the biggest brands today. Its estimated value is over 25 billion. Needless to say Warner Bros and creator J.K. Rowling will go to any length to protect the trademark. Sometimes this is a success (for example against Tanja Grotter). Sometimes, however, it is not (for example the case of Bollywood movie Hari Puttar; Comedy of Terrors).  

Since 2006 MagicX has been distributing HARRY POPPER condoms on the market. The packaging sports a condom wearing the typical Harry Potter glasses and twirling a magic wand. The manufacturer claims that all this is merely a coincidence.

End 2010 the new Harry Potter film will come out. This may very well be the reason that Warner Bros decided to act against MagicX in an attempt to preserve the child friendly reputation of HARRY POTTER. An amicable settlement was not reached so this case will be decided in court later this fall.
 

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?