Miffy vs. Bunnyjuice: Trademark Law Rabbit Battle

Exchange insights, tools, and strategies for canada dataset.
Post Reply
tanmoy666
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2024 8:22 am

Miffy vs. Bunnyjuice: Trademark Law Rabbit Battle

Post by tanmoy666 »

Miffy and sex toys, that is a combination that you do not see passing by very often. This recently turned out to be the case in trademark law. You can read more about the connection between Miffy and sex toys in this article.


Trademark law
It is important to understand the basics of trademark law. A trademark is a sign that serves as a source function. This can be a word, image, a combination of these, a color combination, a sound or even a shape.

A trademark right only comes into saudi arabia business email list existence after registration with the relevant office. For registration, it is mandatory to indicate for which goods and/or services the trademark should be registered. Only these goods and/or services are then protected under the trademark. This means that the same word can be registered twice as a trademark by different parties, as long as it is not for the same goods and/or services (Article 8 UMVo). An example of this is Venti for shirts and Venti for smartphones.

This knowledge is mainly important for marketers, communication experts and anyone who comes up with a new concept, logo or brand. It is of course a waste if a lot of time and energy is invested in a new design or concept, and in the end it turns out that it cannot be used. It is also important for creatives to take into account trademark law.

Image

Exception: well-known brands
Of course, there are exceptions to the basic rules. One of these exceptions is the well-known trademark. If the trademark owner can demonstrate that his trademark is a 'well-known' trademark in the relevant territory, the trademark will be better protected.

A well-known trademark can take action against an identical or similar sign that is applied for for other goods and/or services (Article 8(5) EUTM Regulation). To do so, the holder of the trademark must be able to demonstrate that its trademark is well-known, that the signs are identical or similar, that the applied-for sign damages its reputation and that the use of the applied-for trademark must be without valid reason. This is quite a mouthful of legal jargon, but some things will become clearer on the basis of the case below.
Post Reply