Home
Our team
»
FAQ
»
Publications
»
IP Quiz
»
Our Services
Trademark news
Tony Chocolonely Sweet Solution campaign

Tony Chocolonely Sweet Solution campaign

Tony Chocolonely recently started a campaign in order to expose slavery and child labor in the world of cocoa. The goal is to end this sort of abuse. By offering chocolate bars in wraps very similar to the trade dress of competitors, these companies suddenly and unintentionally find themselves in the spotlight. The look and feel of the used packaging will immediately be recognized as Twix, Toblerone, Kitkat and Ferrero Rocher. Is this allowed?

 

Well, no… at least in principle. Courts in the Netherlands sometimes accept this kind of campaigning if the goal is to expose a social abuse, based on freedom of speech. In such cases the use of someone else's trademark is sometimes permitted. For example Greenpeace’s campaign against Shell (court ruling) but also the campaigns of an animal rights organization against the “broiler chicken” industry, in which the recognizable advertising style of leading supermarket chains are used.

It is important to consider whether with the real objective of the use of another brand is to promote one’s own product or not. That makes a big difference here, because a competing product is promoted here. Hence, in my view, Tony’s competitors should be able to successfully object to this use. This use amounts to piggyback riding on the well-known brand and besides consumers could also be lead to think that there is some kind of collaboration between the two companies.

But would that be smart? Should they take action? The answer is No! There is a fair chance that the public opinion will turn against the trademark owners. Especially if the major players have to explain extensively whether or not the chocolate is made “slave free”, in court, on public record. Our advice is to sit still, if only to prevent loss of public image, and switch to slave and child labor free resources for chocolate as soon as possible.

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
ABCHronicle
Abcors ABChronicle no 50 Abcors ABChronicle no 50
Read this issue online »
Subscribe to newsletter »
Follow Abcor
IP Quiz
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?
Play the quiz
»