/
Peter Heiboer works as an agricultural consultant. He names his office “Heiboer Business Consulting.” In 2020, he decides to start a general partnership (VOF) with two competitors. Peter contributes his sole proprietorship, the associated goodwill, and all his clients when forming the VOF. For this, he receives a compensation of €275,000. The new company launches under the name “Heiboer Business Consulting VOF.”
After two years, Peter decides to leave the VOF. Six months later, the VOF registers the company name “Heiboer Business Consulting” as a Benelux trademark.
Peter decides to resume offering his services as an agricultural consultant. When he positions his new business under the name “Heiboer Consulting,” the VOF demands a ban on the use of that name based on their Benelux trademark registration.
HEIBOER is the distinctive element, and it appears identically in Peter’s company name. Consumers might believe that both companies are the same or may be economically connected. The VOF demands that Peter may use his last name in business dealings, but he is not allowed to use his last name as the company name.
Peter finds this ridiculous and counters with the following arguments. Heiboer is his last name, so he should be able to use it as his company name for his consulting services. Additionally, many other companies are registered under the name Heiboer at the Chamber of Commerce. Furthermore, the Benelux trademark should be annulled. It was applied for in bad faith because customers might think he still works at the VOF, which he doesn’t, so that would be misleading. Who is right, and why?
Decision The judge determines that, during the establishment of the VOF, it was a deliberate decision to use the name “Heiboer Business Consulting.” The VOF had been active under this name for years, so there can be no case of bad faith in the trademark registration. Both parties operate in the same sector and offer competing services. The fact that there are other companies using the same name is irrelevant, as it has not been proven that they are also active in the agricultural sector. The core activities are identical, and the company names are highly similar. a result, Peter is prohibited from using the name. Peter may use his last name for identification, but not as a company name to distinguish services similar to the VOF’s services.
