COATTAIL RIDING BEATLE wheelchair

Apple Corps, the company owned by ex-Beatles Sir Paul McCartney en Ringo Starr, has been in a Legal battle over the registration of the word BEATLE for wheel chairs. The two remaining Beatles do not want their trademark THE BEATLES associated with electrical wheelchairs. The name BEATLE was merely registered to ride the coattail of the reputation of THE BEATLES. OHIM (the EU trademark authority) rejects this claim, stating that the products involved are too different for the consumer to make a link between the trademark. Music and entertainment on one hand and wheelchairs on the other are simply to dissimilar.

The European Court, in appeal, however, agrees with the Beatles. After 50 years THE BEATLES is still a trademark that has a youthful and positive image. A part of the target audience is familiar with the music and because of that the wheelchair manufacturer profits from The Beatles reputation. It is after all easier to sell the wheelchairs if they evoke a sense of freedom an joy that is often associated with The Beatles.

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?