Obscene trademarks – law and advertising

Everybody knows that the Benelux trademark authorities are very liberal as it comes to accepting trademarks. By law, they can refuse trademarks that are contrary to the public order or immoral, but this almost never happens. This seems convenient, but remember that these trademarks may be refused abroad. In Switzerland trademarks are easily refused on religious grounds and the EUIPO refuses trademarks containing the word F*CK. However problems can arise in the Netherlands as well, due to stricter rules regarding advertising.

Stiva filed a complaint against the commercial of Neuken (to f*ck) Likeur. The campaign contained texts like, “life is a matter of taking or being taken”, which in Dutch can be read as “life is a matter of f*cking or being f*cked”, or “when do you like Neuken (to f*ck) the most, before or after the act (accompanied by a picture of a lady in bed)?” The Advertising Code of Conduct Commission has confirmed that this campaign is contrary to good taste, because of the combination of the obscene name “Neuken” and obvious hints to sex. The advertiser is therefore recommended to stop using this campaign.

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?