D-Reizen: bankruptcy and trademark rights

As a result of the pandemic last April, the curtain dropped for D-reizen, one of the largest tour operators in the Netherlands. On March 12, however, all trademark rights were suddenly assigned to another entity, keeping the rights outside the bankruptcy. Immediately the question arose whether this constitutes a fraudulent act (a transfer of assets that is disadvantageous to creditors)? Probably yes, given the fact that parties are facing each other in court.

 

The incident clearly shows that companies should not record such assignments at the last instant. Many companies consciously place all their IP assets, such as patents, trademarks and domain names, in separate IP Holdings. These IP holding companies then license the right to use the trademark to the operating company.


So don’t automatically register your IP in name of the operating entity. If part of the goodwill should be secured, ensure that it is held somewhere where it cannot be touched and do so in a timely and correct manner.

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?