Witte wieven are witches - conceptual similar trademarks

Trademarks may not be confusingly similar. The trademarks are being compared in order to decide if this is the case. The judge compares the trademarks visually, phonetically and conceptually. However, is one of these criteria sufficient to obstruct another trademark. This is the central question in the ‘Witte Wieven’ cheese case.

Heks’nkaas (literally translated: witches cheese) is very popular in the Netherlands and is registered as a trademark for cheese, cheese based sauces and spices. When the trademark Witte Wievenkaas is being applied for to distinguish cheese smears Heks’nkaas opposes.

In first instance the complaint is denied, but the court decides differently. According to the court, witches are female and magical creatures that frighten and usually live isolated. They possess magical powers, which are used for evil purposes. Witte Wieven (women with white hair) are witches as well, according to the court, so conceptually the trademarks are strongly similar. Therefore the trademark Witte Wieven is cancelled from the register. A pity tough, that the court has not taken into account the fact that Heks’nkaas is a well known trademark. The decision would have made a lot more sence.

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?