Can you free-ride on the wave of publicity surrounding the World Cup as a company? In principle you can, as long as this is not in conflict with any statutory regulations and no third party’s rights are infringed upon. But, taking into account the large financial interests, FIFA is doing everything possible to keep the goodwill of the World Cup exclusively for its sponsors. That is why FIFA has again registered a huge number of new trademarks (including RUSSIA 2018) and designs. Better not use these (nor variations on them) and do not offer tickets.
Presumably Crumpy Cat is the most famous cat in the world. The cat’s (real name Tardar Sauce) career was launched in 2012 when its picture was published on Reddit. The dwarfish face of this grumpy creature goes viral (the official FB-page has 8.7 million likes). The cat’s popularity soon motivates the owner, Tabetha Bundesen, to start the company Grumpy Cat Limited. The cat’s face and the name, Grumpy Cat, are claimed as trademarks in the US and several other countries for a diversity of products.
Advertising is legally protected by the constitutional right, freedom of speech. However, can this freedom be limited if certain advertising is harmful or insulting to certain religious groups? This question arises regarding the campaign of the Lithuanian clothing company, Sekmadienis. On the posters there is a man accompanied with the text: “Jesus, what a trousers!”, another poster shows a woman with a bead and the text “Maria, what a dress!” and on the last one Jesus and Maria together with the text: “Jesus Maria, what are you wearing!”
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.
Many believe that the registration of a logo provides limited protection, but current jurisprudence shows the opposite. The LOCK case and the recent decision concerning the logo of Nationale Nederlanden lead to the conclusion that the figurative element of a logo with words should be protected also. But how far reaches this protection of merely the figurative element?
In 1974 Erno Rubik develops a 3D puzzle, a cube with 6 coloured surfaces. The mechanism is protected by a Hungarian patent. Each infringement of the invention can be prevented in this way, regardless of the print on its surfaces. Only after some years the cube becomes a success. Soon all kinds of varieties appear on the market, like the Sudoku Cube and the Kamasutra Cube. Rubik wants to act against these free riders, but how? The patent is already expired.
Call us: 071-5763116 or send an e-mail: info@abcor-ip.com
Een korte introductie tekst over de nieuwsbrief waarin je uitlegt wat het is. Hoe je direct de nieuwste editie kunt lezen en hoe je je kunt abonneren. And click here for all the numbers.
Among others in this issue:
• EUIPO vs Mora TV: weigering geluidsmerk
• Jägermeister vs Alte Heiler: stop Russische copycat
• Stichting Nederlandse Top 40: gericht op Benelux?
• Tijdschrift HART vs Hermitage: soortgelijkheid
• Monique Granneman: nieuwe partner Abcor
