Dutch tradename law- after effect Boerenleenbank (Farmer’s Loan Bank)

Tradename Law provides protection for a local company for the services offered. Yet there seems to be some kind of after effect. In 1972, the Central Raiffeisen Bank and the Boerenleenbank (Farmer’s Loan Bank) merged into the RABOBANK. The name Boerenleenbankdisappeared from the streets.

This fall, an initiative was launched to start a new bank for the agricultural sector in the Netherlands under the name BOERENLEEN VERMOGEN MEER. Rabobank Netherlands objected and won. The court in The Hague based their decision on the after effect of a trade name. The cooperative banks were well known before the merger. Because a company can appeal to the trade (even if not used) if the public makes a connection between the old and the new company name. Be forewarned therefore to use any tradename that used to be used by a different company.

tradenames



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?