Land Rover stops the Land Glider

  In October of 2009 Nissan introduced the Land Glider during the Tokyo Motor Show. A narrow two person car, in which you are seated behind each other, that hangs a bit in corners just like a motor cycle. A new concept of urban car. The name is slightly reminiscent of the supposedly indestructible Land Rover. When Nissan files for trademark protection Land Rover starts a procedure to prevent registration.  

Both trademarks start with the element LAND, which, according to Nissan, refers to land vehicles and is thus not distinctive. Furthermore, there are many other car brands which contain the element LAND. Nissan does not provide any proof of this, however. The first verdict rules in favor of Land Rover. The trademarks Land Rover and Land Glider have been applied for identical goods and are deemed too similar. Because of the reputation of Land Rover the consumer may also assume that Land Glider had some kind of link with land Rover. As a result the trademark is refused. The European trademark authorities still have to rule on the European application. In general they are a bit more lenient, there is still some hope for Nissan.

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?