Trademark news

The Bulldog rightly claims damages from Red Bull

In 2007, Red Bull initiated legal action against the introduction of The Bulldog energy drinks, citing trademark infringement. The contention was that the trademark "The Bulldog" bore resemblance to Red Bull due to the shared element of "BULL". In 2010, the court sided with Red Bull on this. However, The Bulldog contested this decision, escalating the matter to the Supreme Court and eventually the European Court, arguing the legitimacy of their trademark use. They asserted that energy drinks were a natural extension of their offerings in coffee shops and that the trademark had been used in good faith for this purpose over several years. Eventually, The Bulldog's position was vindicated. » trademarks

TOP 40 for Dutch Expats

Trademark rights are territorial. If another party uses a similar sign in another territory, is it possible to take action against it? » trademarks

Russian copycats - Alter Heiler

It seems as though an increasing number of copycat trademarks are being filed in Russia, especially copying large corporations that decided to cease or suspend operations there. Will these applications all be approved now? » trademarks

HERMES vs. HAIRMES

Dog Diggin Design sells products for dogs, such as dog beds, dog pillows and dog toys. When the company applies for trademark registration of the word mark HAIRMES, Hermes objects. » trademarks

Forgetting to register your trademark: time for a rebrand!

Dung Young Food Services started a wholesale store specializing in Asian products in 1957. Since 2011, they have been selling more than 150 different products under the private label AKAYA in six countries. However, the company forgot to register its trademark. » trademarks
page 1
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?