Holiday Ray-Ban sunglasses via Facebook

Ray-ban sunglasses are offered for sale on a closed Facebook group called 'Marketplace without rules' with the following text: "This spring/summer original Ray-ban sunglasses from € 85,-. Nowhere to be found cheaper. More than 280 models in varying colours." A representative of Ray-Ban places a test order and unveils the person behind the Facebook page. When this person refuses to sign an undertaking agreement, parties meet again in court.

Defendant claims that there is no trademark infringement. He got the offered sunglasses for his birthday and had bought some other glasses on his holidays. Ray-Ban's trademark rights are therefore exhausted. He hasn’t kept receipts for these purchases. And that the number 280 was a typo, he only had 28 of them.

Court ignores this, as defendant cannot provide any substantiating evidence. Ray-Ban also proves at the hearing (by means of the case and the packaging) there are fakes. Prohibition, compensation of damages, court costs, etc. are granted.

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?