Descriptive trademarks - Schwarzkopf MEN PERFECT

In 2006 Henkel applied for trademark protection for her logo MEN PERFECT. Competitor Dramers later files for trademark protection of the word MAN’s PERFECT in the Benelux and internationally. Henkel claimed that these applications should be cancelled because of the descriptive nature of the trademark.

The High Court agrees with Henkel. After all MAN’S PERFECT clearly indicates that the product is perfect for a man, or that man is perfect. In both cases it describes either the product itself or its end result.

The High Court does not see any reason to cancel Henkel’s trademark. This trademark does contain descriptive elements, namely the words, but it also contains non-descriptive elements. These compensate the descriptiveness of the words. Although a wordmark generally gives a better protection, visual elements and logos may be very important.

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?