No. The fact that this is not the case is illustrated by the fact that the Jack Wolfskin pawprint and the taz pawprint are based on two independent designs as well as by the fact that they are legally intended for use in two completely different product areas:
- In the case of taz, it was to be used for the newspaper and for anything to do with reporting and the press
- In the case of Jack Wolfskin, it was to be used for goods and services linked to products from the outdoor industry.
It is worth considering in more detail the sequence of events in the dispute in order to recognise that it was never in our interest to contest the use of the pawprint symbol by taz or to damage its business in any other way. For details of these cases, click here.