![]() The court allowed the prohibition and the claim concerning the statement and (report pertaining to) surrender of profits. The court therefore ruled that a commercial activity had been involved whose object had been economic gain. ![]() And in addition, the advertiser had made consistent use of the name Victoria’s Secret Lady in place of her own. What’s more, the advertiser had offered several other products, all bearing the Victoria’s Secret logo. The items purchased by Victoria’s Secret through the test purchase via Marktplaats had been in new condition. ![]() Where use is exclusively in the private sphere, no infringement is involved. Thus, according to the advertiser, no commercial activity with the object of economic gain had been involved, but only of use in the private sphere. She claimed to have purchased the products for her own private use via Facebook and to have offered these in used condition on. The advertiser argued in vain that she had not traded in the products (which Victoria’s Secret had obtained through a test purchase) in commerce. Use in the private sphere or commercial activity? The court immediately established trademark infringement, as the advertiser had offered products for sale bearing the logo of Victoria’s Secret, without the consent of Victoria’s Secret. It asserted that the advertiser had infringed its trademarks, and claimed a prohibition of the trademark infringement, with ancillary claims. Victoria’s Secret had summoned the advertiser. Is this circumstance relevant to the case? Dutch Intellectual property rights lawyer Hidde Reitsma discusses the judgement in this trademark infringement case. Lingerie company Victoria’s Secret discovered that imitations of their products bearing their logo were being offered on the Dutch classified advertising site,, by an advertiser calling itself ‘Victoria’s Secret Lady.’ Behind this name was a ‘welfare mother’ trying to earn some extra cash.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |