1 / 7

C&A v. G-Star

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.

khanh
Download Presentation

C&A v. G-Star

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. C&A v. G-Star

  2. 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.

  3. Arguments G-Star’s 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, DIGGIN’RAW, DigginRaw, DISSIDENT RAW and RAW-DNM.” C&A’s Arguments: • C&A denies that their clothing symbols have breached G-Star’s 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.”

  4. According to the judge in the preliminary injunction proceedings of the Hague District Court, the use of the signs RAW, DIGGIN’RAW and DigginRaw on clothing offered for sale by C&A infringed G-Star’s 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 DIGGIN’RAW 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. Court Decision/Opinion

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

  6. 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 https://sites.google.com/site/class46items/gstarcases/EnglishtranslationG-StarCAjudgment09082011.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1 Implications

  7. 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.

More Related