C&A v. G-Star. Overview After a verdict by the Dutch court on 9 August 2011, fashion brand C&A was ordered to cease large-scale infringements of the trade.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
WIPO: South-South Cooperation Cairo, May 7, 2013 Trademarks and the Public Domain Prof. Dr. Martin Senftleben VU University Amsterdam Bird & Bird, The.
Advertisements

Looking Good: Appeal of Designs in Getting Noticed by the Customer Dr. Kristina Janušauskaitė Advocate (Lithuania) WIPO TOT Program for SMEs Damascus,
Intel & LOreal - the story so far Simon Malynicz 7 April 2009.
Fashion Boutique v. Fendi USA The case of improper evidence supporting plaintiffs claims and their subsequent appeal of District Courts decision.
Christian Louboutin v. Yves Saint Laurent. In April 2011, footwear designer Christian Louboutin filed a suit against luxury design house Yves Saint Laurent,
Excalibur Bakery V. Excellent Bakery The case of invalid trademark.
PROTECTION OF IPR. Importance of protecting Intellectual Property –protection to an invention for the exclusive use of it by – its inventor – leverage.
Trademark enforcement in Belarus AIPPI Baltic, Vilnius, 2013 Darya Lando, Head of Legal Department LexPatent, Minsk, Belarus.
Tradition innovation Online Branding Kate Legg Solicitor.
Genuine Use in inter partes cases 4th Liaison Meeting on Trade Marks June 2009.
Mirror Worlds v. Apple. In 2008, the technology company Mirror Worlds, LLC filed suit against Apple, Inc. for patent infringement in the US District Court.
Alberta printed circuits v. Canada Revenue Agency.
Vodafone Group Plc. v. Indian tax authorities. In 2007 Vodafone International purchased the Indian mobile telephony assets of Hong Kong-based Hutchison.
Burger King Corporation v. C.R. Weaver; M-W-M, Inc.
WTO Dispute DS362 China vs. United States
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Dispute Settlement and Effective Enforcement of IP.
Brian Andreas v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.. In 1994 Andreas, an artist, created an image that included the words, “most people don’t know that there.
Intellectual Property In Malta
What Are Your Products Doing Online? Presented by Anthony V. Lupo Sarah E. Bruno Arent Fox LLP Washington, DC | New York, NY | Los Angeles, CA August 20,
Endemol v. Abbot Reif Hameiri. The Dutch international television production and distribution company “Endemol” has filed a lawsuit against Israeli production.
Balance Dynamics Corporation v. Schmitt Industries, Incorporated.
Baker & McKenzie LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership, is a member firm of Baker & McKenzie International, a Swiss Verein with member law firms.
Strengthening the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in Ukraine Activity October 2014.
According to PTO, a trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination thereof, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods.
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School April 11, 2008 Trademark – Domain Names.
France: A Country on the Move Protecting your Intellectual Property Internationally.
Chapter 5 Intellectual Property & Internet Law
Additions to the Price Paid. Content Price Paid or Payable Additions Additions - Category 1 Additions - Brokerage Expenses Additions - Commissions Commissions/Buying.
FUNDAMENTALS OF TRADEMARK LAW THE HONORABLE BERNICE B. DONALD U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN SEPT. 18, 2013 LAHORE, PAKISTAN.
HONG KONG  BEIJING  SHANGHAI 1 BEIJING Suite 508, Changan Tower 10 East Changan Street Beijing , China HONG KONG 38/F, Cosco Tower Grand Millennium.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. AN OVERVIEW TRADEMARKS DESIGNS COPYRIGHT UTILITY PATENT UTILITY MODEL IP & ENFORCEMENT - HOW SWAROVSKI HANDLES CONTENT.
Trademark II Infringement. Article 57 Infringement Article 57 Any of the following conduct shall be an infringement upon the right to exclusively use.
Baker & McKenzie Presented by Gabriela Vendlova 3 December 2002 Intellectual Property Rights: Importance of Trademark Protection in the Digital World.
Recent developments in Dutch trade mark law London, October 5, 2009 Tjeerd Overdijk Vondst Advocaten Van Leijenberghlaan GG Amsterdam The Netherlands.
I DENTIFYING AND P ROTECTING I NTELLECTUAL P ROPERTY Tyson Benson
Oppositions and enforcement related to the European Community Trademarks - practical issues Markpatent Seminar, Ahmedabad, February 2010.
Mattel, Inc. V. MGA Entertainment, Inc.. In 2004, MGA Entertainment’s Bratz range of dolls emerged on the market, they presented severe competition to.
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) v. Canada revenue agency (CRA)
Cambrige University Press et al. V. Georgia State Univeristy.
2013 IP Scholars Roundtable Drake University, April 12-13, 2013 Trademark Law and the Public Domain Prof. Martin Senftleben VU University Amsterdam Bird.
Temple Island Collection V. New English Teas The case of photograph infringement.
DHL Corporation and Subsidiaries V. Commissioner
Patents and Trade Marks: Belgian Law on injunctive relief Eric Laevens.
1 SECTION 337 INVESTIGATIONS Managing Intellectual Property IP In China April 30, 2013 New York, New York.
Caraco Pharmaceuticals Vs. Novo Nordisk The case of unclear and unfair patenting of generic drugs.
Arlington Industies, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.
Fundamentals of Business Law Summarized Cases, 8 th Ed., and Excerpted Cases, 2 nd Ed. ROGER LeROY MILLER Institute for University Studies Arlington, Texas.
1 The Protection of Patents, Trademarks, Industrial Designs and GIs and Their Role in Trade and Commerce Denis Cohen, WIPO.
1 1 © F-D & B, 2002 BALKAN LEGAL FORUM 2002 SOFIA, BULGARIA Dr. Jürgen Brandstätter ADVERTISING ACTIVITIES IN THE LIGHT OF EUROPEAN LAW STANDARDS.
Generating and protecting a business idea AS Business Studies.
Shonda Brown, et al. v. Ruallam Enterprises, Inc..
What Are Your Products Doing Online? Presented by Sarah E. Bruno Arent Fox LLP Washington, DC | New York, NY | Los Angeles, CA August 19, 2008.
Veritas v. Commissioner. In November 1999, Veritas Software Corp. (Veritas US – now prt of Symantec Corp.) and its wholly owned foreign subsidiary Veritas.
Maruti Suzuki Indian V. India Transfer Pricing Office.
TRADE MARKS: LATEST EU CASE LAW ON ENFORCEMENT By Annick Mottet Haugaard Attorney at law, 2nd Vice President ECTA International Baltic Conference on Intellectual.
© Melanie Fiedler, Attorney at law 2005 Sofia The Community Trade Mark The functions of a trade mark distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking.
Liability of Open Market Sites for Trademark Infringement in Korea September 2012 Song, Kijoong Deputy Director Multilateral Affairs Division Multilateral.
FABRIZIO MONCALVO Case analysis. Case Analysis  Where the services of an intermediary, such as an operator of a website, have been used by a third party.
Google v. Louis Vuitton. Louis Vuitton, which is part of the LVMH group of brands including Moet & Chandon and Dior, had argued that Google was acting.
Judicial System in Germany for IPR Protection presented at the 2009 International Conference on Judicial Protection of IPR 10 September 2009, Chengdu,
Ip4inno 1 A.Copyright B. ‘Reputation’ and common law trade marks C. Unregistered designs D. Semiconductor topography right.
Trademarks III Infringement of Trademarks
International IP Roundtable UNLV, 8 April Seizure of Goods in Transit
THE SCOPE OF PROTECTION OF WELL-KNOWN TRADEMARKS
IP Protection under the WTO
Recent CJEU case law Fordham IP Conference, 25 April 2014 Prof. Dr
Business benefits and advantages of protecting intellectual property
8th Trademark Law Institute Symposium
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
Competitive Price Lines as of _______________________________
Presentation transcript:

C&A v. G-Star

Overview After a verdict by the Dutch court on 9 August 2011, fashion brand C&A was ordered to cease large-scale infringements of the trade marks of the fashion brand G-Star. C&A was ordered to remove apparel from its stores as the judge indicated C&A breached G-Star owned brands by using the words RAW on certain pieces of apparel. This is a second time that C&A through a verdict has had to remove apparel from its stores due to similarities with G-Star apparel.

Arguments G-Stars Arguments: G-Star had registered trademarks for multiple symbols used on clothing that they allege were used (in breach of the trademark) by C&A -G-Star alleges that C&A is using the identical RAW sign for identical goods, or using a similar sign, leading to likelihood of (indirect) confusion on the part of the public. G-Star further alleges that its RAW trademark is a well-known trademark and that C&A is taking unjustified advantage of the reputation of the RAW trademark by using as a trademark or otherwise the signs RAW, DIGGINRAW, DigginRaw, DISSIDENT RAW and RAW-DNM. C&As Arguments: C&A denies that their clothing symbols have breached G-Stars trademark and alleges that: – The RAW trademark had no distinctive character or alternatively that the raw sign is descriptive of the (property of the) goods in question, namely clothes. – Third parties, too, offer and sell clothing showing the word Raw…there is no evidence that they are to this scale taken this seriously and in any case the market study results show that they do not harm the distinctive character of the RAW sign.

Court Decision/Opinion According to the judge in the preliminary injunction proceedings of the Hague District Court, the use of the signs RAW, DIGGINRAW and DigginRaw on clothing offered for sale by C&A infringed G-Stars RAW trade marks for clothing under Art.9(1)(a) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (CTMR), by using the identical RAW sign, and Article 9(1)(b) CMTR, since the DIGGINRAW and DigginRaw signs created a risk of confusion with the RAW trade marks. C&A was also ordered to pay for the costs that G-Star incurred during the proceedings.

Apparel in Question G-Star Raw Apparel C&A Apparel in Question

Implications This case is yet another example of trademarks coming into play in the fashion industry – another example is seen in Louboutin v. Yves Saint Laurent – in which the courts determined further regulations on what constitutes a breach of trademark in the fashion industry. For further reference to this case, please visit ationG-StarCAjudgment pdf?attredirects=0&d=1

About IPR Plaza IPR Plaza is a web-based platform that bridges the gap between IP law, accounting, tax, transfer pricing and valuation by providing general and profession-specific information on intangibles, as well as, quantifiable valuation models. IPR Plaza is empowered by different leading IP advisory firms. IPR Plaza is headquartered in the Netherlands with representation in other major countries.