Free riding on a familiar layout

Not only the typography of Coca-Cola is world famous, also the white wave against a red background design has a high grade of recognition. These elements are naturally registered as trademarks. When a Chinese importer starts using a similarly shaped logo, Coca-Cola objects. It starts a cancellation procedure against the EU trade mark, regardless the fact that that mark was filed in black/white with the words PanPan. Nonetheless, the cancellation is successful.

The European authorities are of the opinion that although the trademarks are visually slightly similar but, because the wavy line is world-famous, the public will still it associate with the reputable Coca-Cola brand. But does the Chinese company also wrongfully benefit from the reputation of the Coca-Cola trademark? It does! Coca-Cola uses the logo in this format a lot, also in combination with other languages/scripts, like Arabic, Chinese, Cyrillic etc. In addition, the Chinese holder effectively uses the trademark without PanPan and on an red background. Coca-Cola wins and the PanPan logo is canceled for soft drinks and similar products. (Source image: EUIPO)

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?