Misleading packaging

In Europe there are certain guidelines one must follow when it comes to packaging of products. It is important that the packaging does not mislead the consumer as to the products and their ingredients. But where exactly is the line that determines what is and what is not misleading?German manufacturer Teekanne sells tea under the name Felix Himbeer-Vanille Abentuer. On the packaging raspberries and vanilla blossom is depicted and it states “fruit tea with natural aromas” it also has a seal that says “only natural ingredients”. A look at the listed ingredients, however, clearly shows that there are no natural elements in the tea at all.

The German Consumer Board finds this misleading and starts a court procedure. In first instance the court agrees with the manufacturer. The listed ingredients clearly show what the tea contains so nobody can be misled. The Appeal Court does not agree with this. The rules are applicable to all elements on the packaging, trademarks and other words and depictions. If the packaging gives the consumer the impression that it has certain ingredients, but those are not really in the product, then this is misleading and something the listed ingredients cannot compensate for.

advertising-law



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?