Importance of registration logos - similar to Lonchmaps figurative mark

In clothing and fashion accessories logos play an important role. Consumers often recognize product snot only by their name, but also by their labels. The visual element is therefore extremely important. If the logo is a clear and recognizable picture, it is advised to seek protection for this.

For example LONGCHAMP has not only registered its word mark, but also its logo with the galloping jockey (for leather and clothing). When INAYA (with a galloping jockey) applies for trademark protection, LONGCHAMPS successfully opposes this, based on her trademark. Both images contain a black and white depiction of a galloping horse, with a jockey that is bent forward quite steeply, with a hat on his head. The fact that the logo is normally used in combination with LONGCHAMP is not relevant. The comparison is between the trademarks are registered/applied. The older trademark is also registered for clothes. Consequences: for part of the goods INAYA’s logo will not be registered.

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?