NETHERLANDS Trends and Developments Contributed by: Radboud Ribbert and Wouter van Wengen, Greenberg Traurig, LLP
is referred for further procedural steps, with Meta required to provide additional clarification about its method. Both parties may also submit comments on the questions to be posed to the experts. After the experts’ report, the parties will have another opportunity to negotiate a licens - ing agreement. If negotiations fail, the court will issue a final ruling as needed. Notable Cases in Brand Protection Below, we discuss notable rulings in the past year with important implications for brand pro - tection. Building blocks battle: infringement injunction granted in case Lego et al. v Wibra Lego sued Wibra for selling flower and animal models made from building blocks similar to Lego’s products, which were also marketed as “Lego flowers” on social media. Lego claimed that Wibra was infringing its trade mark, design, and copyright rights, and accused it of slav - ish imitation. The Hague District Court rejected Wibra’s challenge to the validity of Lego’s design rights, noting that Wibra did not adequately dis - pute these rights. The court found the designs too similar to Lego’s to be distinguished by an informed user and ruled that Wibra’s actions infringed on Lego’s trade marks. Consequently, the court issued an injunction, ordered a recall of the infringing products, and imposed penalties on Wibra for non-compliance. “Champagne” may be used as colour indication for clothing despite protected designation of origin The Comité interprofessionnel du vin de cham - pagne (CIVC), a French organisation responsible for protecting the term “Champagne”, brought a case against Ferminadaza, a subsidiary of US company Cult Gaia. The issue arose when Dutch
customs intercepted a shipment of Cult Gaia dresses bound for Ferminadaza, which featured the word “Champagne” on labels and packag - ing as a colour description. CIVC argued that this violated the protected origin designation of Champagne, which can only be used for wines from the Champagne region in France. Although Ferminadaza agreed to remove the word “Champagne” from the labels, they did not commit to not using it in the future. CIVC sought a court order to prevent further use of the term. The court ruled in favour of Ferminadaza, stating that using “Champagne” to describe a colour for clothing did not violate the origin designa - tion, as the term has long been used as a colour reference in the fashion industry, and consumers would understand it as such. Additionally, the court noted that the term “Champagne” in the context of clothing is not associated with a guar - antee of quality, as it is with the wine. Therefore, CIVC’s claim was dismissed for now. Perfume offered virtually does not automatically correspond to equivalent offered physically – no risk of confusion In July 2023, Artessence FZC filed an opposi - tion against Vinicio SRL’s trade mark, arguing it caused confusion, particularly in relation to their products in class 3 (perfume, cosmetics) and class 4 (candles). While the EUIPO found similarities between the physical products, it ruled that Vinicio’s virtual goods sales did not overlap with Artessence’s products due to dif - ferent distribution channels. The court noted that both trade marks sounded similar for French- speaking EU consumers, leading to confusion. As a result, the opposition was partially upheld, allowing Vinicio to continue selling only virtual goods under its trade mark.
378 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook