Shape of a Flash Light - Mag's shapemark

Mag Instruments, manufacturer of the famous flash lights, registered the shape of the Mini Maglite as a trademark in the registers of the Benelux and the European Union. The flash light is a very big success (50% market share).  

Trading Volume from China imported flash lights that were quite similar to Mag Intruments products. According to Mag Instruments too similar and thus Mag Instruments started a lawsuit. The procedure was based on its shape marks.
There has been much discussion on the validity of shape marks in the past. The court simply states that Mag’s shapemarks are valid trademarks. The intensive use of the established brands has enabled them to acquire the required distinctiveness.
However, this was not the end the case. The question is whether the forms of both products are so similar, that the overall impression is the same. That was not the case. The main visual elements are the distinctive shape of the reflector, the cap and grip pattern on the handle.  These key elements were different in Trading Volume’s products, and therefore there was no infringement.
 

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?