Arctic Cat infringes Black Panther

Many believe that the registration of a logo provides limited protection, but current jurisprudence shows the opposite. The LOCK case and the recent decision concerning the logo of Nationale Nederlanden lead to the conclusion that the figurative element of a logo with words should be protected also. But how far reaches this protection of merely the figurative element?

This is the central question in the conflict between Slazenger (renown brand for tennis articles) and Artic Cat (snow scooters).
Artic Cat files trademark protection (figurative) for a jumping black catlike predator, among other goods for protective sportswear. Slazenger opposes on the basis of its registered figurative trademark of the black panther.

The European Court declares that the signs are similar. Both signs consist of a catlike black silhouette. It is irrelevant that the Slazenger panther looks more realistic then the fantasy figure of Arctic. Arctic’s logo is refused. Therefore, do not only register the word element, but also the combination of word and logo. If the figurative element is special, it should be protected separately as well.

trademarks



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?