Car industry beware: entry price should include delivery costs!
11 May 2012
Dutch Cookie Act is amended
04 May 2012
Slimbread: also Board of Appeal applies article 13-list of the Claims Regulation
02 May 2012
Hoogenraad & Haak wins BALTERIO-case
24 April 2012
Hoogenraad & Haak wins pudding case for De Natuurhoeve!
23 April 2012
Hoogenraad & Haak Advertising Law Firm 2012!
18 April 2012
Vichy misleads consumers with advertisement for anti-aging cream
11 April 2012
Legal 500 recommends Hoogenraad & Haak for IP and Media+Entertainment
03 April 2012
Trade union FNV may use laughing prime minister Rutte in TVC.
22 March 2012
Hoogenraad & Haak listed in The World's Leading Trademark Professionals
07 March 2012
On copyright Protection for databases (CJEU: Football Dataco)
02 March 2012
Slimbread: RCC prematurely applied article 13-list Regulation on Claims?
28 February 2012
Gillette vs. Wilkinson: which razor blade results in the smoothest shave?
25 February 2012
New Labelling Regulation
15 February 2012
Is a voice protected?
13 February 2012
Rectification posters in all Dirk van den Broek stores
10 February 2012
Caroline II: Entertainment press - Government Information Service 1-1
01 February 2012
Albert Heijn successfully claims correction of comparative advertising
20 January 2012
Hema misleads: Always or forever?
20 January 2012
Calendars, posters and canvases: different ways of exploitation?
14 January 2012
BREIN vs. Ziggo and XS4ALL: from the phantom ship to the gangway
23 December 2011
Gillette and Wilkinson: comparative advertising
20 December 2011
ECtHR RTBF/Belgium: Preventive publication ban not provided by law
20 December 2011
New advertising code Email
15 December 2011
222 approved health claims
05 December 2011
Credit warning on sponsored shirts?
05 December 2011
NEWS 2011-3, Hoogenraad & Haak, Advertising+IP Advocaten
02 December 2011
In-house forwarding a digital newsletter - is that allowed?
28 November 2011
Service station(s) breach Dutch alcohol legislation
25 November 2011
Starting from € xxx bargains: watch out!
24 November 2011
Facebook maintains strict advertising rules
22 November 2011
Swan song of the paper collection of cuttings
21 November 2011
TUC and Apéro: the point of trademark packaging
19 November 2011
Maarten Haak chairs autumn meeting of Benelux Trademark and Design Association 2011
18 November 2011
Bullfight: Red Bull / Osborne (TORO XL)
17 November 2011
"What you see is what you get"... (or not?)
16 November 2011
The "Gouden Windei" contest: misleading product names?
15 November 2011
Greetings from the neighbours!
15 November 2011
Honors for Hoogenraad & Haak
27 October 2011
The Oxxio-guy in a tv commercial of NLEnergie is permissible humour!
17 October 2011
Commercial Code for Alcohol follows the mood of the moment
29 September 2011
Old Amsterdam cheese is in fact a youngster!
23 September 2011
Interflora: on brand names, AdWords and comparative advertising
21 September 2011
Miffy parody allowed (Netherlands)
20 September 2011
Discount is not 'free'
30 August 2011
Qualifications of the chairman of the Advertising Code Committee (ACC)
15 August 2011
Limburg Asparagus cream soup: not misleading
03 August 2011
Implied consent LinkedIn for using photos and names
29 July 2011
Parody, not a tobacco advertisement
20 July 2011
Mediq must change its logo
18 July 2011
Web shops can be held liable for the sale of counterfeit goods
08 July 2011
Advertising law + IP NEWS 2011-02
06 July 2011
De Natuurhoeve wins packaging case against FrieslandCampina
04 July 2011
One stop shop for copyrights?
27 June 2011
Health claim in Google Ad or Twitter?
17 June 2011
Maurice de Hond - convicted under civil law and criminal law
10 June 2011
Copyright ready for a change
01 June 2011
Volume of television commercials is turned down!
27 May 2011
Slips, cups and extra straps
25 May 2011
New SMS Advertising Code as of 15 May 2011
17 May 2011
Cheers!
10 May 2011
Apprentice Uitgevers must publish a rectification in the journal Adformatie
21 April 2011
Constraint against DVD pirates
19 April 2011
New logo Air France lacks distinctiveness
08 April 2011
Mentioning BHP in advertisements for cars?
04 April 2011
Hotelkamerveiling.nl / Hotelveiling.nl: descriptive trade names
01 April 2011
Online prior art in Community Design Law
31 March 2011
Dictated by their technical function
23 March 2011
ECJ Adword case: Louis Vuitton loses case from Google
22 March 2011
MyP2P must stop showing live streams
15 March 2011
Advertising law + IP NEWS 2011-01
11 March 2011
Dafurnica: Is free speech at risk?
10 March 2011
Hoogenraad & Haak: Advertising Law Firm of the Year
25 February 2011
About computer monitors and beer
14 February 2011
Speedy settlement decisions of the RCC
10 February 2011
Transfer from poster to canvas copyright infringement in the Netherlands?
07 February 2011
The claim “100% biodegradable” violates the Environmental Advertising Code
28 January 2011
KOAG / KAG website compliance
04 January 2011
Energy+ constitutes unlawful comparative advertisement by using the AdWord TEMPUR
24 December 2010
Again a new Dutch advertising code: The Code Postfilter
10 December 2010
Advertising Law + IP NEWS | newsletter on Dutch and EU developments
10 December 2010
Suit Supply billboards are permitted!
29 November 2010
Adult movie star Kim Holland successfully sews videosite for copyright infringement (Netherlands)
26 November 2010
Editorial Swinglevend with hyperlink to website = still advertising!
18 November 2010
False advertising in the Netherlands
12 November 2010
The case of Sinterklaas
01 November 2010
Netherlands: “100% natural flavour“ is allowed!
21 October 2010
Olm: Ad fundum or ad Advertising Code Committee?
17 October 2010
Complaints about film poster for horror 'Sinterklaas'
08 October 2010
Guidelines for clinical information
01 October 2010
Health claims: some time left
15 September 2010
ECJ: no trademark protection for Lego brick
10 September 2010
Advertising law + intellectual property NEWS - the Netherlands | Hoogenraad & Haak advocaten
25 August 2010
Apple puts a stop to the eiPott
19 August 2010
30 seconds RECTIFICATION ON TV | Netherlands comparative advertising
13 August 2010
Wakker Dier may continue broadcasting its radio commercial against the C1000
04 August 2010
No pictures please: Portrait Rights in the Netherlands
26 July 2010
EU Report on Customs Enforcement
21 July 2010
Ziggo does not have to block The Pirate Bay
14 July 2010
ECJ: Additional rules for brand AdWords and trademarks
08 July 2010
One year free electricity: not for everyone!
29 June 2010
top level domain .xxx for adult content
24 June 2010
Advertising law + intellectual property NEWS 2010-02
22 June 2010
Balloons are more dangerous than you think! | Hoogenraad & Haak advocaten
17 June 2010
New green EU-logo for organic products
04 June 2010
Mandatory warning for food colours in sweets
27 May 2010
Board of Appeal upholds cancellarion Crocs RCD
26 May 2010
Chambers Europe recommends Hoogenraad & Haak for IP in the Netherlands
25 May 2010
GeenStijl: Broad interpretation of press exception
20 May 2010
The flash regulation: acquire permission first
06 May 2010
The song remains the same: no entitlement to SENA-monies for studio producer
29 April 2010
Not satisfied: no delivery costs!
23 April 2010
Infringement? Trademark owner has many tools.
10 April 2010
Advertising Code Commission: no trademark and copyright issues anymore!
10 April 2010
Advertising Code Commission: no trademark and copyright issues anymore!
26 March 2010
Hoogenraad & Haak increases its team
17 March 2010
Not 16? Not a drop
05 March 2010
EFSA again rejects a lot of health claims
25 February 2010
A less good defence: "I did'n know that IP right"
24 February 2010
Fatboy, the Original?
13 February 2010
The end of cookie-advertising on day nurseries
04 February 2010
Dutch Consumers' Association loses in summary proceedings against T-Mobile and Vodafone.
27 January 2010
Is the use of a CTM in only one member state enough?
22 January 2010
Buma/Stemra: sink or swim
21 January 2010
Slogans can be a trademark after all!
15 January 2010
Not paying the SRC- contribution? Advertisers on black list
07 January 2010
Not 16? Not a drop
24 December 2009
Miffy now has its line after all - copyright law in the Netherlands
17 December 2009
Zero communication costs for promotional game of chance
14 December 2009
Advertising law + intellectual property NEWS 04/2009
12 December 2009
Advertising Congress 2009: broader definition of advertising
11 December 2009
.eu domain names: also in Chinese and Greek
19 November 2009
Swinglevend II: Referring to 'an expert' is also not permitted
16 November 2009
What 'virtual' reality?
02 November 2009
Calcium and vitamin D for bone growth kids!
28 October 2009
Jackpot € 27,5 million will fall guaranteed = not misleading
22 October 2009
Artisanal supermarket bread not misleading
15 October 2009
EFSA strict on article 13.1 ‘general function’ claims!
06 October 2009
Low threshold for CTMs to gain a reputation
02 October 2009
Stricter rules CO2 fuel consumption since 1 October 2009!
01 October 2009
No more ringtones and branded sports equipment for alcohol advertising
22 September 2009
AdWord use of trademarks not infringing, Google not liable
18 September 2009
Socialist Party sends unwanted advertising material
08 September 2009
No Dutch ban on advertisement for sweets
06 September 2009
Are LEGO blocks protected in the Netherlands?
26 August 2009
Mininova ordered to remove bit torrents
21 August 2009
The Elwood rules: copyright law in the Netherlands
11 August 2009
KPN and Getronics oppose against abuse
06 August 2009
Increased control by VWA for compliance with Nutitrion claims!
31 July 2009
Who has the rights on the campaign posters of Obama?
24 July 2009
Just-Eat: no tradename nevertheless unlawful!
17 July 2009
Swinglevend article '12 cents per day' = advertising
09 July 2009
No brand protection for BOUNTY bar
03 July 2009
Copyrights belong to client?
20 June 2009
L'Oréal/Bellure: new rules for marks with a repute
18 June 2009
NUCLEAR ENERGY IS NOT ‘CLEAN ENERGY’
11 June 2009
Trademark owners: register with Facebook!
05 June 2009
Thou shallt not spam
23 May 2009
Sapph lingerie ‘Less Dress to impress’ is allowed
28 April 2009
British anti-domestic violence ad too brutal to be shown
24 April 2009
Sarkozy, do not complain!
15 April 2009
Fraude Chamber of Commerce stopped
09 April 2009
2 new advertising codes since 1 April 2009
01 April 2009
Caution: Borrowing money costs money
28 March 2009
Organic coloured Easter eggs
20 March 2009
CROCS under fire: Makro sells 'Clogs'
16 March 2009
A snowstorm of Nijntjes
05 March 2009
Dutch Advertising Code Committee: “Nuclear energy is not clean”
23 February 2009
MPC4 advertorial = advertisement (life without pain)
13 February 2009
Dedicated search engine infringes database rights
16 January 2009
Stunting with Björn Borg boxer shorts
30 December 2008
Dutch Senate passes new Media Act
19 December 2008
Starting January 1st: no more alcohol commercials between 6.00 am and 9.00 pm
15 December 2008
PepsiCo wins summary proceedings against G-Star
12 December 2008
Tell-a-friend permitted under conditions
01 December 2008
No absolute protection for famous marks
17 November 2008
Final Sale and 'the bottom line'
17 October 2008
LIEF! distinctive for children and baby clothes
03 October 2008
Johma free-range egg salad: What's in a name?
12 September 2008
Quit drinkers? Snow Beer is coming!
22 August 2008
This parody was not allowed. Justified or not?
30 June 2008
Are comments of buzzers commercial communications?
26 June 2008
Website liable for 'user generated content'?
19 June 2008
New Advertising Code for Alcoholic beverages from 1 July 2008
15 June 2008
O2: No trademark action against comparitive advertising!
11 April 2008
Official opening Hoogenraad & Haak advocaten
03 April 2008
Antispam rules could block news (Netherlands privacy)
25 February 2008
New Commercial Code: deception and dishonest trade
24 February 2008
Wilders, Marlboro and the International Socialists (Dutch portrait law)
15 February 2008
Comparative advertising: more use of trade marks?
29 January 2008
Chasing illegal downloaders more difficult
21 January 2008
Numerical .nl domain names also possible
14 December 2007
Ebba Hoogenraad chairs Advertising Congress
03 December 2007
Hoogenraad & Haak advocaten in Emerald House
24 September 2007
New niche firm advertising + intellectual property
NO ABSOLUTE PROTECTION FOR FAMOUS MARKS
INTEL: a unique and well known brand for computer products. Is there anyone who doesn't know it? Still, Intel Corporation cannot stop any use of a similar trademark by others by calling upon this immense fame. This follows from a decision given by the ECJ at the end of November. An English telemarketing company had registered the trademark INTELMARK for its services. Intel Corporation proceeded against this registration, as the average consumer will, when taking notice of INTELMARK, have an association of the famous trademark INTEL. That could reduce the impact of the well known trademark, to the detriment of the well known mark. Sufficient to give INTEL a stronger right, Intel Corporation argued. The ECJ looks at it from a different perspective. If for the average consumer the later mark calls the earlier mark with a reputation to mind, this fact is tantamount to the existence of a link between the both trademarks. Yet such link is not enough. There must be more at stake for the cancellation or an order to stop the use of a later mark: the user of the look alike mark takes an unfair advantage of the use; the well known mark dilutes; or the use of the later mark is detrimental to the repute of the well known mark. In addition, the well known older brand is stronger in case of a serious likelyhood that one of these situations will occur in the future. Such situation cannot be assumed by the court, but must be proved. And that is a new perspective. A serious likelyhood: that in itself appears sensible. But there is a mean snake in the Intel judgment. The ECJ holds that proof of dilution requires evidence of a change in the economic behaviour of the average consumer of the goods or services for which the earlier mark was registered consequent on the use of the later mark. If the later mark is not yet used, a serious likelihood that such a change will occur in the future is sufficient as well. This evidence is not easily provided. How could it be proved that customers are behaving differently because of the introduction of the later look alike mark? Or is the later mark is not yet in the course of trade: that the behaviour is seriously likely to change? The ECJ leaves too much room for the user of the later mark to argue that such change of behaviour has another cause. The owner of the well known mark bears the heavy burden of proof. It is good that more clarity came over the rights that go with well known trademarks, but the owners of well known marks singed too many feathers.
Maarten Haak, trademark lawyer
|
office Emerald House Jozef Israëlskade 48-G Amsterdam, the Netherlands t +31 (0)20 - 305 3066 www.hoogenhaak.nl |
post PO Box 76780 1070 KB Amsterdam e info@hoogenhaak.nl f +31 (0)20 - 305 3069 chamber of commerce 34314579 |
NO ABSOLUTE PROTECTION FOR FAMOUS MARKS
INTEL: a unique and well known brand for computer products. Is there anyone who doesn't know it? Still, Intel Corporation cannot stop any use of a similar trademark by others by calling upon this immense fame. This follows from a decision given by the ECJ at the end of November. An English telemarketing company had registered the trademark INTELMARK for its services. Intel Corporation proceeded against this registration, as the average consumer will, when taking notice of INTELMARK, have an association of the famous trademark INTEL. That could reduce the impact of the well known trademark, to the detriment of the well known mark. Sufficient to give INTEL a stronger right, Intel Corporation argued. The ECJ looks at it from a different perspective. If for the average consumer the later mark calls the earlier mark with a reputation to mind, this fact is tantamount to the existence of a link between the both trademarks. Yet such link is not enough. There must be more at stake for the cancellation or an order to stop the use of a later mark: the user of the look alike mark takes an unfair advantage of the use; the well known mark dilutes; or the use of the later mark is detrimental to the repute of the well known mark. In addition, the well known older brand is stronger in case of a serious likelyhood that one of these situations will occur in the future. Such situation cannot be assumed by the court, but must be proved. And that is a new perspective. A serious likelyhood: that in itself appears sensible. But there is a mean snake in the Intel judgment. The ECJ holds that proof of dilution requires evidence of a change in the economic behaviour of the average consumer of the goods or services for which the earlier mark was registered consequent on the use of the later mark. If the later mark is not yet used, a serious likelihood that such a change will occur in the future is sufficient as well. This evidence is not easily provided. How could it be proved that customers are behaving differently because of the introduction of the later look alike mark? Or is the later mark is not yet in the course of trade: that the behaviour is seriously likely to change? The ECJ leaves too much room for the user of the later mark to argue that such change of behaviour has another cause. The owner of the well known mark bears the heavy burden of proof. It is good that more clarity came over the rights that go with well known trademarks, but the owners of well known marks singed too many feathers.
Maarten Haak, trademark lawyer