Tax assessment or commercial

To commemorate its ten year anniversary Leerkus MotoFun sent a funny mailing with the theme “extreme amount of tax refunds!!”. The mailing was addressed to “whoever inhabits this address” and was sent in a blue envelope just as the Dutch IRS does. In the bottom left corner in small print (almost too small to see) it said “this is an action from MotoFun from Twello”.

Although it was clearly a parody, not everyone was able to appreciate it. First the agency was reprimanded by the Ministry of Finance and after that by the Advertising Code Commission. The complaint with the Advertising Code Commission centered around article 11.1. This article determines that a mailing should be immediately recognizable as an advertisement. The recipient of the mail should be immediately able to see that it was an advertisement and not an official communication from the IRS. This was not the case. The color blue and the print “belastingdienst” which means IRS, was clearly copied from the official IRS envelope. Since the announcement that it is an advertisement is depicted too small on the envelope the advertisement is deemed in contravention with article 11.1 of the Dutch Advertising Code.

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?