HEMA fined €4.5 million - trademark infringement Levi's arcuate

Levi Strauss puts a lot of effort in securing the reputation of its jeans’ brands. The company has registered many marks and signs as trademarks. Not only the name LEVI'S is protected, but also type numbers (501 etc.), names, logos, the characteristic red pocket-label and it’s typical stitching. That makes sense, because for example the V-shaped stitching on the back pocket (Levi's arcuate) is a very distinctive sign. Consumers recognize the jeans as real Levi's.

When Dutch retail chain HEMA starts to sell jeans with a similar stitching sign in 2015, a lawsuit soon follows. Levi claims infringement and demands compensation of € 50 per jeans sold. The Brussels Court partly agrees. The stitching on the HEMA jeans looks so similar to those from Levi's that the consumer can easily mistake the jeans for a pair of Levi's. Consequence: infringement. A total of 221,603 units were sold. However, court deems the demanded compensation too high and fixes it to an amount € 20 per unit sold. HEMA is therefore sentenced to pay damages in the amount of nearly €4.5 million to Levi Strauss.

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?