In 2011, Umami Hengelo opened its doors, offering guests a variety of Japanese, Chinese, and Thai dishes, including sushi. You can dine in or choose to take the dishes to go.
In 2024, Sushi Brothers launched in Raalte and Borne (with plans to expand to Nijverdal). Specializing in Japanese cuisine, including sushi, these dishes are also available for takeout.
When the company decided to change its name to Umami, the Hengelo-based business objected. Both companies offer similar services (Japanese cuisine and sushi takeaway), and their company names were confusingly similar. As a result, the Raalte and Borne-based company decided to adopt the names Umami Taste Raalte and Umami Taste Borne.
The Hengelo-based company still found this insufficient and continued to object to the use of the word “Umami,” demanding a ban on its use a company name.
The Raalte and Borne company disagreed, arguing that “Umami” simply means “delicious taste/savory flavor” in Japanese. It’s one of the five basic tastes and therefore, the plaintiff cannot monopolize this term. The company also uses a completely different logo, and by adding “Taste” and the location names (Raalte/Borne), sufficient distinction is made. The claim should be rejected. Who is right, and why?
The court ruled that the Hengelo company holds older rights. Due to its publications in the Tubantia newspaper, the company has gained some local recognition in the region. The court determined that this recognition extends within a 30 km radius from the location, which includes Borne and Nijverdal, but excludes Raalte.
“Umami” is not a descriptive trade name. It does not describe a type of restaurant. The fact that the term is used worldwide by many restaurants is not relevant. Initially, the defendant used the identical trade name “Umami,” which constituted an infringement. In such cases, the new name must differ more significantly to resolve the issue. The addition of “Taste” and a location name was insufficient, especially since the plaintiff also uses the name “Umami” with the location name “Hengelo.” The defendant is therefore prohibited from using the current business names within a 30 km radius (i.e., in Borne and Nijverdal) and is also forbidden from using any similarly matching business name that includes the word “Umami.”
Who is right and why?
