Roy Donders claims his name – trademark application in bad faith

In the Benelux there are no separate rules for the registration of personal names as a trademark. Since 2012 Roy Donders has become famous, thanks to various TV shows. In 2013 a marketing agency registers the trademark ROY DONDERS for clothing in the Benelux. After this the agency contacted Roy Donders and proposed to work together. At the time Donders was busy with a marketing campaign for a supermarket. Matters quickly escalated after that.

The court judged that the registration was unlawful, despite the fact that there are no specific rules for personal names. The marketing agency had obviously been acting in bad faith since they knew of Roy Donders’ existence. The consequences of all this was that the trademark registration was cancelled and the real Roy Donders was free to register his name as a trademark. Fortunately this case was in line with previous case law on such matters and demonstrates that hijacking someone’s name, despite a lack of legislation, is not a profitable activity in the Benelux.

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?