Reputable trademarks and oppositions

Reputable trademarks have a wider scope of protection than regular marks. Judges take this into account in procedures, so they will more easily conclude that a reputable trademark is infringed. During new trademark applications, holders of earlier marks may object, if they believe that the new application is similar to their earlier mark.

An opposition procedure is a rapid procedure to prevent a similar mark from being registered. The downside is that owners of reputable trademarks in many countries (also in the Benelux countries) cannot invoke their trademark’s reputation in an opposition procedure. Because of this sometimes trademark applications are being registered that ideally never should have reached that stage. A good example is the registration of a new logo for tea and coffee machines in Switzerland.

Coca Cola launched an opposition to stop the registration process. The products are similar (coffee and soft drinks are alternatives), so it comes to match or logos. Coca-Cola insisted on the reputation of its logo. Because this ground in opposition proceedings does not exist, it cannot be taken into account. The trademark office therefore finds no violation.

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?