Can a well-known brand like Pink Lady ban the use of its name on vapes?

When a very well-known brand, associated with healthy products such as fruit, suddenly appears on the packaging of electronic cigarettes, the question arises: can the brand owner just forbid it? Yes, absolutely. A recent ruling of the president of the Dutch-speaking enterprise court of Brussels of 10 April 2025 affirms that use of the name "Pink Lady" on vapes constitutes trademark infringement because it takes unfair advantage of and detracts from the reputation of the well-known apple brand.

The facts: apples versus electronic cigarettes

The case revolved around a dispute between APAL, the Australian owner of the world-famous PINK LADY brand, and its licensee Star Fruits, on the one hand, and Eurolit, a Lithuanian manufacturer of electronic cigarettes (vapes), on the other.

APAL and Star Fruits found that Eurolit was marketing vapes under the brand name "K#RWA," with the flavor variant "PINK LADY" prominently displayed on the packaging. They argued that this violated their trademark rights and demanded an immediate cessation of this use throughout the European Union.

Eurolit defended itself by arguing that the use of "Pink Lady" was merely descriptive and referred to the cocktail of the same name, not the apple brand. In addition, Eurolit filed a counterclaim and asked the court to declare the PINK LADY marks invalid, in part because the name was allegedly derived from a plant variety.

Enterprise court decision

In her ruling of 10 April 2025, the president of the court, sitting as in summary proceedings, vindicated APAL and Star Fruits on virtually all counts.

The president ruled as follows:

1. Eurolit's counterclaims are dismissed: The president rejected the demand for cancellation of the marks. The argument that the mark is based on a plant variety designation failed because the legal basis for this was only introduced after the registration of the PINK LADY marks and has no retroactive effect. The claim that 'Pink Lady' had become a generic name (generic) was also dismissed for lack of evidence.
2. Trademark infringement does occur: The president found that Eurolit was infringing the trademark rights of PINK LADY. The judge ordered Eurolit to cease all use of the name PINK LADY on its products throughout the European Union within two months.
3. Periodic penalty imposed: To ensure compliance with the ban, the court attached a penalty of €250 per product to the injunction, with a maximum of €350,000.
4. No destruction of the products: The claim to destroy the vapes already produced was rejected, as the judge found it to be a non-proportionate measure.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This ruling is a textbook example of the extensive protection enjoyed by so-called "famous marks." Normally, the principle of speciality rules in trademark law : a trademark is protected only for the goods and services for which it is registered (in this case, apples and related products in Class 31).

Article 9.2.c of the Union Trademark Regulation and Article 2.20.2.c of the Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property (BCIP) however, provide an exception for well-known trademarks. The owner of a mark with a reputation can take action against the use of an identical or similar sign for any product, including non-similar goods such as vapes. To do so, however, a number of cumulative conditions must be met, which the president confirmed one by one in this case:

• Brand awareness: The president ruled that the PINK LADY brands enjoy a "very high profile" in Benelux and the EU, which was demonstrated by market studies, media reports and investment figures.
• Relationship between trademark and sign: The president considered that, upon seeing “PINK LADY” on a vape, the public would inevitably make the connection with the well-known apple brand.
• Impairment of the trademark: This is the crux of the matter. The president identified two forms of impairment:
  1. Taking unwarranted advantage (parasitizing): Eurolit is capitalizing on the positive, healthy and quality reputation of the PINK LADY brand to make its own products more attractive.
  2. Doing damage to reputation (tarnishing): The association of the healthy image of PINK LADY apples with an unhealthy product such as vapes damages the carefully built reputation. The president noted that this damage is all the more significant because the name "PINK LADY" is used alongside the brand name "K#RWA," which has a vulgar and offensive meaning ("whore") in several European languages.
• Use without a valid reason: Eurolit could not demonstrate a legitimate reason for using the name. The "Pink Lady cocktail" argument was considered implausible.

What this specifically means

• For holders of well-known trademarks: This ruling is an important confirmation that you can take action against parties who try to hitch a ride on your reputation, even in completely different sectors. It shows that a brand's image is powerfully protected against associations that may tarnish or dilute it.
• For producers and marketers: Be extremely careful about using names that are even remotely reminiscent of a well-known trademark, even if it is intended as a flavor description. The defense that the use is "purely descriptive" rarely holds up when a trademark with a strong reputation is involved. The financial consequences, such as injunctions and penalties, can be significant.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

What is a "well-known trademark" under the law?
A trademark is considered "well-known" if it is known to a substantial part of the relevant public in a substantial part of the European Union (for a Union trademark) or the Benelux (for a Benelux trademark). This is assessed based on all relevant circumstances, such as market share, the intensity and duration of use, and the amount of marketing investment.

Does this mean I should never use a fruit name as a flavor designation?
Not necessarily. The crucial difference is whether the name is a purely generic description (e.g., "apple flavor") or a registered trademark that has developed its own reputation (such as PINK LADY). Using a protected trademark, even as a flavor designation, is a risk.

Why was the destruction of the vapes not ordered?
The court must always respect the principle of proportionality when imposing measures. This means that there must be a reasonable relationship between the severity of the infringement and the sanction imposed. In this case, the court ruled that an obligation to destroy all stock was too severe and disproportionate a measure, since the injunction with penalty payment was already sufficient to stop the infringement.

Conclusion

The case of PINK LADY vs. K#RWA vapes powerfully illustrates how far the protection of a well-known trademark extends in Belgium. It is a clear warning to companies trying to lean on the reputation of others. For brand owners, it is reassuring that their investments in name recognition and image are strongly protected legally from harmful associations.