Dinosaur logo’s insignificant differences

Cartoon figures are regularly used to market child products. Ehrman (a big German dairy products company) launches Monster Backe, a friendly smiling dinosaur, in 2006. The character is being used for packaging’s, advertisements and online computer games. To protect the rights, the cartoon figure is registered as a European Union trademark, distinguishing milk and dairy products. When a third party applies for a European Union Trademark for a similar dinosaur, for among others milk, dairy products, pie, candy and coffee products, Ehrman files an opposition.

Nonsense, according to the Latvian applicant of the latter trademark: a dinosaur cannot be monopolized. The EUIPO and the court state that there is trademark infringement. The trademarks are visually and conceptually highly similar. In both cases there is a happy dinosaur, drawn in the same style and in the same perspective.

There are differences, but those are small. The prior dinosaur is walking on shoes in the opposite direction with a glass of milk in the hand and licking it´s lips. The customer usually does not make a direct comparison between the products and has to base his decision on a vague memory, forgetting certain details. As a consequence the application is rejected. Conclusion: if cartoon figures are being used to promote or market certain products, make sure to protect the characters in due time.

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?