LOCK - why to register logo’s?

A word trademark registration covers the use of the word in every writing style. For that reason, companies prefer registering trademarks in standard characters. So if the logo chances, the word will still be protected via the wordmark registration. However, sometimes the design of the logo does not clearly reveal which word it contains. In these cases the logo should be protected as a trademark as well. The LOCK-case is a good example. The holder of the German word trademark LOCK files a cancellation action against the European trademark LOCKMASTER. Both trademarks distinguish electric motors. The wordmark LOCK is older than 5 years, so the use of the trademark must be proven.

The holder of the mark files several document: certified declarations of its director, a catalogue and pictures of the products. In all the evidence, only the logo is displayed and not the wordmark itself. The European authorities judge that the average consumer does not recognize the wordmark in the logo (with the gearing wheel and the stylized letter “L”). As a consequence, the cancellation action is denied, because the normal and proper use of the invoked wordmark LOCK has not been proven. Therefore, in case of complex logo’s it is advisory to not only claim the wordmark, but the logo as well.

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?