<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Chiever</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.chiever.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.chiever.com</link>
	<description>Marks &#38; Brands</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 11:41:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
		<item>
		<title>Noa triumphs over Vianoa</title>
		<link>http://www.chiever.com/blog/noa-triumphs-over-vianoa/</link>
		<comments>http://www.chiever.com/blog/noa-triumphs-over-vianoa/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2011 04:54:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tessa</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Noa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rent-a-Tent @en]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chiever.nl/?p=2365</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Dutch company Rent-a-Tent must stop using the name Vianoa to advertise its camping holidays. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Dutch company Rent-a-Tent must stop using the name Vianoa to advertise its camping holidays. Apparently it’s too similar to Noa Vakanties (Holidays), a trade mark registered to the Traveleventgroep in the Benelux.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.chiever.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/MOA-vakanties.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-2205" title="MOA vakanties" src="http://www.chiever.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/MOA-vakanties.jpg" alt="" width="192" height="177" /></a><br />
<strong>Noa distinctive<br />
</strong>In a ruling of 10 June, the district court in Almelo concluded that the word ‘Noa’ was the most distinctive element in the word mark and trade name Noa Vakanties. The name Vianoa, which was being used to advertise identical activities, could therefore give rise to confusion. As a result, Rent-a-Tent was told it had to stop using the trade name Vianoa and the domain name vianoa.nl within 10 days.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chiever.com/blog/noa-triumphs-over-vianoa/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ban on fake Crocs</title>
		<link>http://www.chiever.com/blog/ban-on-fake-crocs/</link>
		<comments>http://www.chiever.com/blog/ban-on-fake-crocs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Aug 2011 14:22:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tessa</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Calze del Mondo @en]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crocs @en]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chiever.nl/?p=2373</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Calze del Mondo, an importer of fashion accessories, has been ordered not to sell shoes that resemble the familiar coloured plastic shoes made by Crocs. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Calze del Mondo, an importer of fashion accessories, has been ordered not to sell shoes that resemble the familiar coloured plastic shoes made by Crocs. The district court in The Hague published the ruling on 1 June 2011 in a case brought by Crocs.</p>
<p> <strong>Consignment of 53,000 fake shoes<br />
</strong>In March 2011, the customs seized a consignment of more than 53,000 plastic shoes modelled on those of Crocs. They were made in China and destined for the German market. Once Crocs had been notified of the haul, it immediately had the shoes impounded and began legal proceedings against Calze del Mondo.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.chiever.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Crocs.jpg"><img title="Crocs" src="http://www.chiever.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Crocs.jpg" alt="" width="230" height="139" /></a></p>
<p> <strong>Overall impression<br />
</strong>The court ruled that the fake shoes infringed Crocs’ copyright to the ‘Beach’ model. Despite having a different heel strap, the overall impression was that both shoes were very similar, the court concluded.</p>
<p> <strong>Other similar models<br />
</strong>In a bid to undermine Crocs’ claim, Calze responded that there were many other Crocs imitations on the market which the shoe-maker had ignored. However, the court rejected this defence. Even if it were true, it said, Crocs was not obliged to oppose all potential infringements of its copyright, nor did it have to tell Calze del Mondo why it was taking legal action in this particular case.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chiever.com/blog/ban-on-fake-crocs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Origami artist under fire</title>
		<link>http://www.chiever.com/blog/origami-artist-under-fire/</link>
		<comments>http://www.chiever.com/blog/origami-artist-under-fire/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2011 06:05:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tessa</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sarah Morris @en]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chiever.nl/?p=2359</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sarah Morris, a well-known American artist, has been taken to court by six other artists from Spain, Italy, Japan and the US. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sarah Morris, a well-known American artist, has been taken to court by six other artists from Spain, Italy, Japan and the US. The group, who specialise in origami-based art, claim that Morris has plagiarised their work.<br />
<strong>Copying, colouring, exhibiting<br />
</strong>Morris is alleged to have done nothing less than copy existing origami works, colour them in and exhibit them as her own, with no accreditation. This constitutes an infringement of the copyright of the other artists, according to the case brought before the district court in California.</p>
<p><strong>USD 100,000<br />
</strong>The claim relates to a total of 24 works of art. Some of Morris’s works have been sold for over USD 100,000.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chiever.com/blog/origami-artist-under-fire/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>McCartney stops auction</title>
		<link>http://www.chiever.com/blog/mccartney-stops-auction/</link>
		<comments>http://www.chiever.com/blog/mccartney-stops-auction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2011 15:25:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tessa</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eric Wylam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul McCartney]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chiever.nl/?p=2355</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In June, lawyers acting for ex-Beatle Paul McCartney halted an auction in Gloucestershire, England, which was about to sell off some drawings McCartney had made.

]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In June, lawyers acting for ex-Beatle Paul McCartney halted an auction in Gloucestershire, England, which was about to sell off some drawings McCartney had made.</p>
<p><strong>Mice<br />
</strong>The drawings are of mice and were done in 1973, when McCartney was performing with his band Wings. With the help of artist Eric Wylam, the drawings were made into an animated film which was never publicly screened.</p>
<p> <strong>Rights held by McCartney<br />
</strong>McCartney objected when Wylam’s daughter decided to auction both the film and the drawings, which have been in her family’s possession for nearly 40 years. Eric Wylam himself died in 1997. McCartney claims that he owns the copyrights to the drawings and hadn’t known that they and the film were held by the family.</p>
<p> <strong>GBP 25,000<br />
</strong>The auction house has responded by withdrawing the items, which had been expected to fetch around GBP 25,000 each.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.chiever.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Bruce-McMouse.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-2195" title="Bruce McMouse" src="http://www.chiever.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Bruce-McMouse.jpg" alt="" width="164" height="185" /></a></p>
<p>Bijschrift tekeningen: Bruce McMouse, drawn by Paul McCartney</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chiever.com/blog/mccartney-stops-auction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cola dispute resolved</title>
		<link>http://www.chiever.com/blog/cola-dispute-resolved/</link>
		<comments>http://www.chiever.com/blog/cola-dispute-resolved/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:06:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tessa</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coca Cola @en]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Superunie @en]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chiever.nl/?p=2271</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For months, Coca Cola and the Dutch purchasing organisation Superunie have been locked in a dispute about the shape of Superunie’s First Choice cola bottle.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For months, Coca Cola and the Dutch purchasing organisation Superunie have been locked in a dispute about the shape of Superunie’s First Choice cola bottle. Coca Cola claimed it was too similar to its own world-famous Coca Cola bottle. But in April 2010, the two parties finally buried the hatchet, with Superunie agreeing to change the shape of its bottle as shown below. Problem solved.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chiever.com/blog/cola-dispute-resolved/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>44,000 lost files in India</title>
		<link>http://www.chiever.com/blog/44000-lost-files-in-india/</link>
		<comments>http://www.chiever.com/blog/44000-lost-files-in-india/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:04:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tessa</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HalidramPvt. Ltd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indian Trade Mark Office]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chiever.nl/?p=2263</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Indian Trade Mark Office recently admitted it had mislaid 44,404 of its trade mark files.

]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Indian Trade Mark Office, which is responsible for managing the Indian Trade Marks Register, recently admitted it had mislaid 44,404 of its trade mark files.</p>
<p><strong>Investigation<br />
</strong>The case of the missing trade mark files first came to light in 2009, when HalidramPvt. Ltd applied to view a number of files it needed to settle a trade mark dispute. When the Trade Mark Office couldn’t locate them, or explain why, the court ordered an investigation.</p>
<p><strong>Decentralised in 2006<br />
</strong>The investigation has now established that over 44,000 files are missing. They are thought to have been mislaid during a decentralisation drive at the Trade Mark Office in 2006.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.chiever.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/india.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-2265" title="india" src="http://www.chiever.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/india.jpg" alt="" width="259" height="194" /></a></strong></p>
<p><strong>Trade mark owners must send in copies<br />
</strong>The Trade Mark Office is now doing its best to put things right. A list giving the numbers of all the missing registrations has been published and all the owners of the ‘lost’ trade marks are being asked to send in their own copies of the files so they can be digitalised.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chiever.com/blog/44000-lost-files-in-india/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Coffee, pure and simple?</title>
		<link>http://www.chiever.com/blog/coffee-pure-and-simple/</link>
		<comments>http://www.chiever.com/blog/coffee-pure-and-simple/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:24:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tessa</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Douwe Egberts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Leiden University’s Medical]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chiever.nl/?p=2159</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[These cups are used to serve coffee at Leiden University’s Medical Centre. But do they remind you of anything else?]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>These cups are used to serve coffee at Leiden University’s Medical Centre. But do they remind you of anything else? Are you familiar with the well-known Dutch coffee brand Douwe Egberts (<a href="http://www.de.nl">www.de.nl</a>)?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chiever.com/blog/coffee-pure-and-simple/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Cocaine for Coca-Cola</title>
		<link>http://www.chiever.com/blog/no-cocaine-for-coca-cola/</link>
		<comments>http://www.chiever.com/blog/no-cocaine-for-coca-cola/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jul 2011 06:21:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tessa</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coca Cola @en]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chiever.nl/?p=2029</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Soft drinks manufacturer Coca-Cola has filed an opposition in Chile against the registration of the word ‘Cocaine’ for a non-alcoholic beverage. 
]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Soft drinks manufacturer Coca-Cola has filed an opposition in Chile against the registration of the word ‘Cocaine’ for a non-alcoholic beverage. Coca-Cola claims that registering the name of a hard drug for an energy drink infringes standards of moral decency.</p>
<p> ‘<strong>Marihuna’</strong><br />
In its opposition, the US beverage giant points out that Chile has already refused registration of the trade marks Marihuna and Ko Caine on similar grounds.</p>
<p><strong>Cocaine doing well</strong><br />
Coca-Cola’s action presumably isn’t based solely on a desire to fight immoral trade marks, but is primarily also a response to the similarity between the Cocaine’s red can and that of its own drink.</p>
<p><strong>Other countries</strong><br />
Cocaine isn’t only available in Chile; it’s also sold in many other countries, including the US. So the possibility that Coca-Cola will go on the warpath elsewhere can’t be ruled out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chiever.com/blog/no-cocaine-for-coca-cola/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trademark owners conned on grand scale</title>
		<link>http://www.chiever.com/blog/trade-mark-owners-conned-on-grand-scale/</link>
		<comments>http://www.chiever.com/blog/trade-mark-owners-conned-on-grand-scale/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2011 11:22:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tessa</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chiever.nl/?p=2003</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Anyone who registers a new trade mark is sent an fake invoice.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>These days, anyone who registers a new trade mark is sent an invoice soon afterwards as payment for including it in an official-looking register. The amount demanded is usually around € 1,500. However, if you carefully read the small print, you’ll see it’s all a con: the register doesn’t exist or else has no significance or value.</p>
<p><strong>Fake invoices<br />
</strong>Every month, illicit organisations manage to extract considerable sums of money from trade mark owners. And even if only a small percentage sign up, these swindlers still turn a good profit.  DON’T PAY UP!</p>
<p><a href="http://www.chiever.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/woip.pdf">Click her for an example</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chiever.com/blog/trade-mark-owners-conned-on-grand-scale/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Red Bull launches attack on Bavaria’s B52</title>
		<link>http://www.chiever.com/blog/red-bull-launches-attack-on-bavarias-b52/</link>
		<comments>http://www.chiever.com/blog/red-bull-launches-attack-on-bavarias-b52/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 07:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tessa</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[B52 @en]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bavaria @en]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Red Bull @en]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chiever.nl/?p=1997</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Energy drinks producer Red Bull is putting up a fierce fight to hold on to its distinctive blue and silver logo. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Energy drinks producer Red Bull is putting up a fierce fight to hold on to its distinctive blue and silver logo. Anyone thinking of using the same colours on their drink cans can count on a swift reaction from the company, which recently took on B52, the trade mark of a subsidiary of beer-maker Bavaria. The case is shortly due to be heard by the district court in Amsterdam.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chiever.com/blog/red-bull-launches-attack-on-bavarias-b52/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
