Smoking bad for jeans - mustang jeans and cigarettes

Mustang is a famous German jeans brand (launched in 1948). Its logo, which contains a stylized mustang, refers to the wild west. The trademark is registered in many countries. When a comparable logo is registered for tobacco the jeans company opposes this. The products are, of course, entirely different. Still the applied trademark may damage the distinctive qualities and reputation of the famous jeans brand.

A key element in all this is that the consumer makes a connection between the products. A theoretical assumption is not sufficient.
The fact that other cigarette companies (like Camel and Marlboro) also sell clothing (to promote their tobacco brand) is not enough to substantiate that the consumer will make this connection.
Smoking is unhealthy, as is generally known. However, this is not enough proof to assume that a cigarette brand has a negative effect on a jeans brand. The claim is therefore rejected. The case shows that reputable trademarks should not start this type of procedures without a solid market research preceding it.

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?