The DaWanda case taught us that our approach at the time was disproportionate. Since then, we first write to those involved in trademark infringements with the aim of finding a mutual agreement, provided they are not cases of counterfeit goods or they are not clearly attributed to the commercial domain. Since 2010, we have established our own Code of Conduct, which stipulates when we should take action, and when we shouldn’t. In general, persons in the private domain are not issued with warnings, and even in the case of corporate instances, we still set great store by coming to a mutual agreement. Legal assistance is the last resort if a mutual agreement no longer seems possible. This is also borne out by the record of serious cases over the past ten years. The proceedings in the case of the Famous Five filming by Alias Entertainment GmbH, for example, was very different to the DaWanda case and was, in our view, completely proportionate:

  • Alias Entertainment GmbH wanted to register the pawprint logo as a trademark in areas to which we lay claim – clothing, footwear and equipment.
  • The Alias Entertainment GmbH case was a clear instance of commercial interest.
  • The legal steps taken by Jack Wolfskin against Alias Entertainment GmbH only came into play once attempts to reach a mutual arrangement failed after more than 18 months.
  • The magnitude of the sales and marketing channels would have been much, much higher in the Famous Five case. This would, therefore, have led to a much higher risk of dilution for the trademark.

For more information about the dispute with Alias Entertainment GmbH, see here.