Home
Our team
»
FAQ
»
Publications
»
IP Quiz
»
Our Services
Privacy regulations

Privacy Statement Abcor BV

This is the Privacy Statement of Abcor BV, a company located at Frambozenweg 109-113 in Leiden. Abcor is registered at the Dutch chamber of commerce ('Kamer van Koophandel') with registration number 33296694.

Abcor BV respects the privacy of all visitors of our website. We only collect personal data necessary for the displaying of our website and the services offered thereon. In addition, we offer a number of services for which the processing of personal data is necessary, such as registration forms, contact forms and your invoice details.

Abcor BV makes every effort to ensure that all personal data that is collected by and provided to Abcor BV is treated confidentially and is only used for purposes as described in the Privacy Statement.

Which data do we collect?

Abcor BV uses personal data and information only for administration and necessary handling of its services. Abcor BV does not collect any personal data unless it is provided to us via our website.

For the use of the registration form, contact form and invoice, we ask you to provide the following data:

  • Company name and legal form (or own name)
  • First name and surname
  • City, Postal code, street, house number
  • E-mail address
  • Data about you trademark, such as the trademark name

In addition, you can choose to give us your phone number, your website address and inform us about all goods and services you want to use your trademark for. We only use these data to provide you with a suitable response.

Cookies

This website uses cookies related to Google Analytics. Personal data that is collected on our website through use of cookies are only used to provide services and for analytical purposes. For more information you can see our Cookie Policy.

Purposes and legal grounds for the processing of personal data

The personal data collected on our website is only used for purposes which they were provided for. We use the personal data from the registration form, contact form and invoice data only for the purpose of executing our services with regards to the agreement concerning your trademark registrations or registered designs. Furthermore, we use your data for analytical purposes with regard to cookies. If you have used our contact form, we will only use your personal data to contact you. We will use the registration form to file your trademarks in the public trademark registers. Via the invoice data out cost will be charged. Apart from that, we will keep you updated about the developments in our field of practice that matter for your trademark via our newsletter.

Duration of the storage of personal data

Your data will be saved as long as they are necessary for the provision of our services or as long as we have a business relationship with you. After this relationship is ended, your personal data will be deleted at latest 12 months after the ending of our business relationship.

Right to access, rectify and supplement personal data

You can request access to your personal data by sending an e-mail to info@abcor.nl or by filling out our contact form online. Following up to your request, you can ask Abcor BV for your personal data and request a rectification or addition.

Right to erase data and limit the processing

You have the right to request (deletion of some personal data (right to be forgotten) and the right to have us process less data (limitation of processing). This way you can file a request for deletion of objectively incorrect data, incomplete, unlawful or irrelevant data. Also you can revoke your previously given explicit consent for the use of your personal data by Abcor BV. If you are below the age of 16, but your personal data is collected on our website, you can also invoke your right to be forgotten.

Right to object to data processing

You can also object to the processing of your personal data on the ground of objections to direct marketing and if your rights outweigh the rights of Abcor BV to process your personal data. You can request insight by sending an e-mail to info@abcor.nl of by filling out our contact form online.

Right to transfer data

You have the right to receive the data that we have about you (right for data portability). This way you can transfer your data to another supplier of the same type of service. You can also ask us to transfer your data directly to another organisation. You can do this by sending an e-mail to info@abcor.nl or by filling out our contact form online. We will make sure that your personal data will be transferred in a structured and commonly used file format (such as Excel or PDF). This way your personal data is easily accessible in another environment.

The right to file a complaint at the Dutch Data Privacy Authority

If you have a complaint about the use of your personal data, you can always contact us by sending an e-mail to info@abcor.nl . Would you rather file a complaint at the Authority itself, you can follow the following link: https://autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/nl/zelf-doen/privacyrechten/klacht-over-gebruik-persoonsgegevens

Will my personal data be provided to third parties?

Abcor BV will never give your personal data to other parties without your consent, unless we are legally required to do so, for example on the grounds of a legitimate claim by competent authorities.

This policy was drafted in April 2018 and last modified in May 2018. When Abcor BV implements changes in the way they collect personal data via this website, it will be announced in the Privacy Statement. We will notify you by e-mail when major changes are made.

This privacy statement was last modified on May 11th, 2018.

Our Clients
ABCHronicle
Abcors ABChronicle no 53
Read this issue online »
Subscribe to newsletter »
Follow Abcor
IP Quiz
claimant
defendant
claimant
defendant

IP Knowledge Quiz Designs

The plaintiff specializes in online sales of children's bicycles. In safeguarding its rights, the company has registered the design of these bicycles under Community Design. Through a multiple design registration, the company secures the rights for 10 new versions of its children's bicycles simultaneously under Community Design. Subsequently, when the defendant introduces a similar bicycle, legal proceedings ensue. Among the various claims, the plaintiff alleges infringement of its design rights, which in turn is contested by the defendant. A design must possess novelty and individual character. The defendant states that the design lacks novelty, as elements of this design are already present in various existing bicycles. Essentially, the defendant's bicycles reproduce these elements, resulting in a lack of individual character. According to the defendant, the community designs are thus invalid. Even If the plaintiff's designs should be valid, the defendant argues that its bicycle deviates sufficiently. The defendant argues that the plaintiff has sought protection for more or less similar designs in the multiple design registration. Apparently, the plaintiff believes that these designs differ enough to create a different overall impression. The defendant's bicycles deviate just as much, thus creating a different overall impression (the so-called doctrine of equivalents argument). The question arises: are the plaintiff's bicycles valid designs despite comprising known aspects from various bicycles, or does the defendant's design exhibit sufficient deviation, thereby enabling the invocation of the doctrine of equivalents concerning the multiple design registration? The court determines that designers of children's bicycles enjoy considerable freedom in their designs. Consequently, if another bicycle lacks significant distinctions, it will quickly evoke a similar overall impression for the informed user, thereby lacking individual character. The comparison is drawn between the new design (the AMIGO bicycles from T.O.M.) and an older existing design (bicycle). To prove that a design is not new, you cannot, as Prijskiller (the defendant) asserts, mosaic together various elements. Therefore, as a defendant, you cannot argue that a design is not new because its characteristics are present in various different products (see also the judgment Karen Millen). If, as a designer, you combine different aspects from multiple designs for the first time into a new product, then this is simply a new and valid design. This is the case with the AMIGO bicycle. The design is upheld as valid. The AMIGO Magic bicycle features a unique tubular frame, rendering it novel. The bicycle is further distinguished by the name MAGIC, the chain guard design, and accessories such as a basket, handlebar streamers, and doll seat. Prijskiller contends that its frame shape differs (being thicker) and that the drawings are positioned differently. Additionally, Prijskiller highlights the distinct color scheme; however, TOM has registered the designs in line drawings, thus disregarding this element in the evaluation. Nevertheless, several similarities are apparent. Both bicycles exhibit an almost identical pattern of butterflies and flowers, positioned nearly identically on the frame. Furthermore, the name MAGIC is depicted in the same font and placement on the chain guard. Consequently, this bicycle fails to evoke a different overall impression for the informed user. The designer's extensive creative freedom in designing children's bicycles means that the differences highlighted by Prijskiller are minor and inconspicuous. Prijskiller's invocation of the doctrine of equivalents is likewise dismissed. The court opines that this case pertains to models concurrently deposited by T.O.M. This circumstance precludes the invocation of the "doctrine of equivalents" because, in compliance with the regulations regarding novelty, individual character, and the grace period, the various models cannot diminish each other's novelty or individual character, nor their scope of protection. In essence, in simultaneous (multiple) deposits, the "doctrine of equivalents" holds little significance. Consequently, these 2Cycle Magic bicycles fail to impart a different overall impression for the informed user. The designer's extensive freedom in designing children's bicycles and the minor differences highlighted by Prijskiller render the infringement claim upheld.
Play the quiz
»