BAVARIA fends off German attack

For over 10 years Dutch beer brewer BAVARIA has been entangled in legal issues with German beer manufacturers from the state of Bavaria. In 1994 the Association of Bavarian Beer Brewers issued a request with the European authorities to protect Bavarian Beer as a geographical indication. This would mean that the consumer would be ascertained that whenever he bought “Bavarian” beer, the beer would actually come from Bavaria.  

There are several protected geographical indications, the most famous being Parmesan Cheese and Champagne. But even the Netherlands has some geographically protected names, such as Gouda and Edammer. The grant for the geographical protection of Bavarian Beer was eventually issued in 2001.
In the meantime, BAVARIA, from Lieshout in the Netherlands, applied for trademark protection in Germany in 1995. Although the beer brand has been used since 1925. The question now  is, which right is the strongest?
The court eventually decided in favor of BAVARIA from the Netherlands. The reason for this being that with geographical indications the critical date is not the application date, but the date of acknowledgement, which in this case was 2001. Good news for Dutch BAVARIA beer and a wise lesson for all of us: In order to prevent this from happening it is advised to always immediately register your trademark in any countries in which you may use it.
 

trademark-registration



Latest news
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
Competitor registers domain name
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?