Nada for Prada

Where many people seek certainty, in the legal world it is often the case that everything depends on the circumstances of the case. Annoying, because if you want to make a decision, you look for certainty.

The Prada case illustrates this nicely. Whereas in our previous post Calvin Klein successfully opposed the trademark CAIVENKELIN brand, PRADA is unable to stop PULADA as a European trademark. A salient detail is that the font is identical and that PULADA is the Chinese (phonetic) transliteration of PRADA. It did not help.

The EUIPO finds the trademarks, due to the R and the UL, similar to a low degree. The office sees a similarity in font, but this font is a rather banal font that adds no distinctive character to the PRADA trademark. Finally, Chinese is not an official language in the European Union and this argument cannot be taken into account.

In view of the overall impression of the marks, the EUIPO comes to the conclusion that the marks differ sufficiently.

What is the difference with Calvin Klein? The similarity between the trademarks was more convincing in the Calvin Klein. Prada could have compensated this with convincing evidence of its reputation but failed to do so.

Deel dit bericht

Arnaud Bos

“Merkbescherming geeft vrijheid om te kunnen ondernemen.”



Wilt u meer informatie over de bescherming van uw merk?

0294 490 900