Trademark news

Combating Greenwashing Environmental Claims in Trademarks

Consumers are increasingly influenced by environmental claims when purchasing products. Environmental claims (or sustainability claims) include terms such as ‘green,’ ‘eco,’ ‘organic,’ ‘climate neutral,’ etc. These claims suggest that the products are made from natural ingredients or are produced sustainably. » trademark-registration

Lego doll valid shape mark

In 1974, Lego made waves in the toy industry with its introduction of construction dolls, setting a new standard for innovation. Recognizing the uniqueness of their design, Lego promptly registered the shape of these dolls as a trademark within the European Union. However, such shape marks are subject to stringent requirements, making them susceptible to challenges from competitors eager to exploit any lapses in trademark protection for their own gain. » trademark-registration

Trademark Escobar parfum contrary to public order

Authorities have the discretion to reject a trademark application if it contradicts public order and morality. Interestingly, the European trademark office tends to apply a stringent standard in such cases. This became evident when a French trademark registration for the packaging of PARFUMS ESCOBAR encountered hurdles upon extension to the European Union. » trademark-registration

HART – the importance of trademark research

Last summer, Museum Hermitage Amsterdam announced its name change. The museum no longer wanted to be associated with Russia. The new name HART however, did not go down well with the Belgian art magazine HART. In 2006, the company had established the logo for printing, advertising, cultural activities and magazine publishing. » trademark-registration

Sound mark - children's song

When people think of brands, they often only think of word marks and logos. However, there are many types of trademarks, such as multimedia marks, position marks and, of course, sound marks (think, for example, of the lion's cry from film company Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer). However, not every sound can be claimed as a trademark.  » trademark-registration
page 1
Our Clients
Follow Abcor

IP Knowledge Quiz Designs

The plaintiff specializes in online sales of children's bicycles. In safeguarding its rights, the company has registered the design of these bicycles under Community Design. Through a multiple design registration, the company secures the rights for 10 new versions of its children's bicycles simultaneously under Community Design. Subsequently, when the defendant introduces a similar bicycle, legal proceedings ensue. Among the various claims, the plaintiff alleges infringement of its design rights, which in turn is contested by the defendant. A design must possess novelty and individual character. The defendant states that the design lacks novelty, as elements of this design are already present in various existing bicycles. Essentially, the defendant's bicycles reproduce these elements, resulting in a lack of individual character. According to the defendant, the community designs are thus invalid. Even If the plaintiff's designs should be valid, the defendant argues that its bicycle deviates sufficiently. The defendant argues that the plaintiff has sought protection for more or less similar designs in the multiple design registration. Apparently, the plaintiff believes that these designs differ enough to create a different overall impression. The defendant's bicycles deviate just as much, thus creating a different overall impression (the so-called doctrine of equivalents argument). The question arises: are the plaintiff's bicycles valid designs despite comprising known aspects from various bicycles, or does the defendant's design exhibit sufficient deviation, thereby enabling the invocation of the doctrine of equivalents concerning the multiple design registration? The court determines that designers of children's bicycles enjoy considerable freedom in their designs. Consequently, if another bicycle lacks significant distinctions, it will quickly evoke a similar overall impression for the informed user, thereby lacking individual character. The comparison is drawn between the new design (the AMIGO bicycles from T.O.M.) and an older existing design (bicycle). To prove that a design is not new, you cannot, as Prijskiller (the defendant) asserts, mosaic together various elements. Therefore, as a defendant, you cannot argue that a design is not new because its characteristics are present in various different products (see also the judgment Karen Millen). If, as a designer, you combine different aspects from multiple designs for the first time into a new product, then this is simply a new and valid design. This is the case with the AMIGO bicycle. The design is upheld as valid. The AMIGO Magic bicycle features a unique tubular frame, rendering it novel. The bicycle is further distinguished by the name MAGIC, the chain guard design, and accessories such as a basket, handlebar streamers, and doll seat. Prijskiller contends that its frame shape differs (being thicker) and that the drawings are positioned differently. Additionally, Prijskiller highlights the distinct color scheme; however, TOM has registered the designs in line drawings, thus disregarding this element in the evaluation. Nevertheless, several similarities are apparent. Both bicycles exhibit an almost identical pattern of butterflies and flowers, positioned nearly identically on the frame. Furthermore, the name MAGIC is depicted in the same font and placement on the chain guard. Consequently, this bicycle fails to evoke a different overall impression for the informed user. The designer's extensive creative freedom in designing children's bicycles means that the differences highlighted by Prijskiller are minor and inconspicuous. Prijskiller's invocation of the doctrine of equivalents is likewise dismissed. The court opines that this case pertains to models concurrently deposited by T.O.M. This circumstance precludes the invocation of the "doctrine of equivalents" because, in compliance with the regulations regarding novelty, individual character, and the grace period, the various models cannot diminish each other's novelty or individual character, nor their scope of protection. In essence, in simultaneous (multiple) deposits, the "doctrine of equivalents" holds little significance. Consequently, these 2Cycle Magic bicycles fail to impart a different overall impression for the informed user. The designer's extensive freedom in designing children's bicycles and the minor differences highlighted by Prijskiller render the infringement claim upheld.