Home
Our team
»
FAQ
»
Tariffs
»
Publications
»
IP Quiz
»
Our Services
Trademark news
Victory comes from Alkmaar

Victory comes from Alkmaar

Many companies register their trading name as a trademark. Reason: a trademark provides much broader protection than trading name law. Especially if services are offered locally, the scope of protection is too limited to inhibit fellow companies in other regions. » tradenames
DOC/Dairy Partners - purely descriptive trade names

DOC/Dairy Partners - purely descriptive trade names

For some years now (following recent case law of the Dutch Supreme Court) there has been discussion about the extent of the protection of purely descriptive trade names. Can a company with a descriptive trade name claim exclusivity to this name and subsequently prohibit other companies from using a similar word in their trade name? » tradenames
Limited protection of a company name

Limited protection of a company name

Many companies seem to think that listing the company’s name in the commercial register at the Chamber of Commerce or having the internet domain provides sufficient protection against third parties from acting under a similar name. Unfortunately quite often that is not the case. A trademark registration on the other hand gives a better chance of claiming the company’s name exclusively. » tradenames
Fundr: limited claim trade name right

Fundr: limited claim trade name right

Many companies assume that the use of a trading name or a domain name is sufficient to make a broad claim on the exclusive right to that name. These assumptions can prove painfully wrong. Since 2016, a company named Funding Innovation (later “Funder Inc.”) has been using the name FUNDR as a trade name and domain name. The company provides consulting services in the field of corporate funding and government grants. » tradenames
Royal Dutch and the Royal predicate

Royal Dutch and the Royal predicate

There are strict rules regarding the use of the terms ‘Royal’ or ‘purveyor to the Royal household’. These are titles, granted by the King to companies with a prominent position in the Netherlands. Further conditions are that a company must be at least a hundred years old, have no less than a hundred employees and have a formidable reputation. The grant by the King is a favour, not an enforceable right. Companies that use these titles, without the King’s permission, give the impression that all conditions are successfully met. In order to prevent any abuse (and to protect the intellectual property rights of the Royal House), our former Queen Beatrix established a foundation. » tradenames
page 1
Next »
Our Clients
ABCHronicle
Abcors ABChronicle no 45 Abcors ABChronicle no 45
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
»