BEYONCÉ vs FEYONCÉ - trademark rights and parody

Using a trademark in a joke about the latest news is mostly allowed as a parody. However, where is the crossing line between making a parody and commercially profiting? We see this question arise repeatedly when companies use well-known trademarks or persons in a humoristic way in their marketing.

It goes without saying that Beyoncé is one of the most popular and leading artists in the world. To avoid abuse of her name, BEYONCE is registered as a trademark for as wide scale of products. Not only for audio recording and life performances, but also for cosmetics, clothing and merchandising products. When the firm Feyoncé enters the market with a drinking cup ‘FEYONCÉ’ with the caption “he put a ring on it” she demands a prohibition. Feyoncé defends the phrases on the cup, claiming it is a parody. The case is before the Texan Court at the moment. In the European Union such a defence would have a low chance of success. This is a clear case of taking unfair advantage of the reputation of a well-known trademark. Parody and marketing are incompatible.

trademarks

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?