EU trademarks and Brexit

This spring, a little more became clear about on the effects of Brexit on companies with an EU trademark / EU registered design. The European Commission has published a draft agreement on this subject. The key being that after the exit companies in England should automatically keep similar rights. Although this is only a draft, the expectation is that the final result will not be much different from this.

The committee proposes that these rights automatically come into existence. So without extra actions from the holder, not having to undergo a new assessment and without new costs. (however, whether this will ultimately be the case is still uncertain). Because holders’ rights will automatically continue, it does not seem necessary to separately file national UK trademarks in addition to EU trademark registrations already in existence. However, it is wise to anticipate on Brexit. Check which trademarks are vital for your business in the UK (in case any kind of fee has to be paid) and check whether agreements / licenses in force before Brexit still remain valid in England afterwards. March 30th , 2019 is less than a year away. (Source: freepik.com)

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?