Grenade as a shape mark for a drink, unconventional trademarks,

A special packaging is often enables a manufacturer to distinguish himself from the competition. Most of the times, however, a shape cannot be registered as a trademark. The authorities usually refuse to register a trademark because the consumer will not see it as a sign of origin. An exception is sometimes made if the shape of a product is distinctly different from what is customary.

A fine example of this is the packaging of a new supplement, meant for burning fat, in the shape of a grenade. The trademark has been applied for by the English company Grenade. The trademark has already been accepted. OHIM appears to be more liberal than national trademark authorities in accepting this mark. The Victor & Rolf Spicebom perfume (also in the shape of a grenade) was previously prohibited in Denmark because it would be contrary to public order and good taste.

trademarks



Latest news
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
Competitor registers domain name
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?