Deal or Case news
26.11.2024
Our firm represented L'Oréal, leader in the global beauty market, in a significant trade mark dispute concerning the protection of its brand LANCÔME.

On 25 November 2024, the District Court of The Hague ruled that the LANCÔME’s trade mark protection extends to signs ending with -ÔME and -OME, even if the beginning differs. This decision recognises the enlarged scope of protection for well-known trade marks.

Case overview
The core issue in this case was the trade mark infringement on L'Oréal's reputed LANCÔME trade mark for beauty products. Established in 1935, LANCÔME is synonymous with luxurious skincare, perfume, and cosmetic, enjoying high consumer recognition and a strong market position.

The infringement concerned the use of the sign 'NINÔME' by Ninôme. Ninôme is a Dutch company specialising in a beauty product based on collagen, with Dutch supermodel Kim Feenstra as its brand ambassador. NINÔME was launched with significant online publicity. Prior to the oral hearing, Ninôme offered to rebrand from 'NINÔME' to 'NINOME'.

What’s interesting about this case is that the court accepted the doctrine of the so-called aftereffect as established by the Dutch Supreme Court.
Jeroen Boelens, IP partner

The Court’s decision
The judge ruled that both NINÔME and NINOME infringed L’Oréal's trademark rights by causing confusion among the relevant public due to the use of a highly similar sign for identical goods, strengthened by the high degree of distinctiveness of LANCÔME. The judge also considered that Ninôme’s use of 'NINÔME' in advertisements, which prominently feature a model's portrait with large lettering, could further strengthen consumer confusion since this style of advertising closely resembled the style used by LANCÔME.

L'Oréal was represented by Jeroen Boelens, Liselotte Bekke and Laura Zanting. IP partner Jeroen Boelens noted that the court accepted the doctrine of the so-called ‘aftereffect’ (nawerking) as established by the Dutch Supreme Court. “Pursuant to this doctrine, even if that sign would not be infringing per se, a risk confusion can still continue after the infringer has rebranded to another sign which resembles too closely the prior infringing. This doctrine is rarely accepted in Dutch case law.”

Related articles

Cookie notification

This functionality uses third-party cookies. Change your cookie preferences to view this content or view more information.
These cookies ensure that the website works properly. These cookies cannot be disabled.
These cookies can be placed by third parties, such as YouTube or Vimeo.
By deactivating categories, it is possible that related functionalities within the website may no longer work properly. It is always possible to change your preferences at a later time. View more information.