Strength of referring logos - 42BELOW vs VODKA 42

In 1999 New Zealander Geoff Ross introduces a new pure vodka under the name 42BELOW. Bacardi buys the company eventually, after the product turned out to be a great success, most notably in the United States in 2008. In 2009 the company registers the logo as a trademark in many countries in Europe via an International Registration. One year later Czech company Granette files an EU application for her name VODKA 42, Bacardi immediately opposes this.

Granette, on the other hand, claims that the number 42 is descriptive. It refers to the alcohol percentage in its vodka, which is 42%. Bacardi´s product has a lower alcohol percentage. In this context 42 has a different meaning, and the logo is different as well, which according to Granette would exclude any chance of confusion. The European Court disagrees with this. 42 is the dominant element in both trademarks and only a part of the target consumers will see it as a referral to the alcohol percentage. The graphic differences are minimal. Granette’s application is therefore denied protection in the European Union. This case clearly demonstrates that even trademarks that have a referring character should be registered.

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?