Blondie up to date

After almost 30 years, Blondie still has the ability to spark one’s imagination. Therefore, one of her photos fitted perfectly within Cosmopolitan's new 'Tough Women' campaign. The campaign used existing stock photographs.

 

The rights that are paid for belong to the photographer. However keep in mind that portrait rights are not the same. This is something that Blondie knew too - When she saw herself on a poster after her performance in Paradise, it was time to square up with the publisher.

portrait rights



Latest news
3.6 Million in damage repaires
State symbol use in logo’s
STARS COFFEE
Product liability: Saeco and Philips too?
Sustainability claims in advertisement
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?