Home
Our team
»
FAQ
»
Publications
»
IP Quiz
»
Our Services
Trademark news
Reputable Benelux trademark - TUC forbids packaging

Reputable Benelux trademark - TUC forbids packaging

General Biscuits (LU) has been producing biscuits since the sixties under the brand TUC crackers. Through intensive use TUC became a reputable trademark and General Biscuits the market leader. In order to protect its rights, TUC not only registered the logo on the pack, but also some details of the packaging including the typical yellow background with the logo in blue and white.  

TUC competitor Hoppe also produces cookies and introduces them under its own brand APERO.
The court says that there is trademark infringement and referred to the earlier ruling by the European Court in Carbonell-La Espanola. Most importantly, this time is the visual similarity. The visual impact caused the way General Biscuits uses different colour indications on the packaging played a key role. The yellow background, white letters, the blue square, red accents and the cookies on each other. Although the words APERO and TUC are not similar, the overall visual impression is the same and that is decisive.
This is especially important for products found in supermarkets, as consumers are guided by the visual impact and may thus inadvertently pick the wrong box. This will invariably lead to confusion. Result: ban, recall, sales information to determine damages. It is expected that this ruling will have major implications for the packaging of private label products, which are often the style and colours of brands take over.

 

trademarks

Trademark infringement, trademark issues and oppositions
»
Goodwill business / IP check
»


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
ABCHronicle
Abcors ABChronicle no 50 Abcors ABChronicle no 50
Read this issue online »
Subscribe to newsletter »
Follow Abcor
IP Quiz
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?
Play the quiz
»