Benelux Color mark AJAX invalid

Ajax sells merchandise items bearing the logo of Ajax, the red track and lyrics like 'Amsterdam' and 'Pride of Mokum. In order to protect its goodwill (and exploit), AJAX has a number of trademark registrations made based on the red track. A trader sells a vest with a red stripe, crosses and the words “PRIDE OF Mokum”. On the vest is a label FANSPORT, FANWEAR FOR FANS and “official licensed product”. The vest is not from AJAX.  

During the lawsuit AJAX invokes its colour marks, a square containing a red stripe and a T-shirt with a red stripe.
The judge ruled first that the colour marks are not valid. It is not exactly clear what colour is claimed. In the past a simple colour box used to be enough, but not anymore. Now the registration needs to be more specific. A PMS colour code is most certainly a requirement. The claim based on the colour marks is rejected. Fortunately, for AJAX their subsidiary claim based on unlawful act was successful. The items were presented in such a way that the consumer may believe they were official AJAX merchandise.
 

trademark-registration



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?