Can you just revive an old festival without involving the trademark owner?

Many successful events from the past have a strong nostalgic value, which makes them commercially attractive. But may you adopt the name and concept of a former festival simply because it has not been organized for a while? A judgement by the president of the Dutch-speaking enterprise court in Brussels on Aug. 12, 2025, shows that co-surfing on the goodwill of another - even when the trademark registrations themselves are at issue - constitutes an unfair market practice.

The facts and legal context

The case revolves around the well-known music festival ‘Marktrock’ in Leuven. The original non-profit organization Marktrock organized the festival from 1982 to 2006, after which the rights were transferred via several intermediate steps in 2015 to the company Live Entertainment nv (L.E.). L.E. also holds various Benelux and Union trademarks for the name ‘Marktrock’ and ‘Marktrock Leuven’. The last edition of the festival took place in 2017.

In 2024, the daughters of one of the original founders decided to revive the now dissolved non-profit organization Marktrock and organize an August 2025 edition. They did so without L.E.“s permission and explicitly profiled the event as a ”comeback," using the same venue, the same concept (including talent contests and tribute bands) and visual nods to the past.

L.E. initiated a cease and desist action for a violation of its trademark rights and unfair market practices. However, Marktrock asbl had meanwhile already initiated proceedings at the European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP) to have L.E.'s trademarks declared invalid for alleged lack of genuine use.

Enterprise court decision

The President of the Dutch-speaking Enterprise Court of Brussels, as in summary proceedings, rendered the following decisions in this case:

• Suspension of trademark claims: Because the validity of the trademarks was already being challenged at the EUIPO and the BOIP, the court was legally obliged to suspend the trademark infringement proceedings pending a final decision from these bodies.
• Conviction for unfair market practices: Despite the suspension of the trademark suit, the court held that the claim based on the Code of Economic Law (CEL) was admissible and well-founded. Systematically citing the past, copying the concept and location, and using similar domain names create confusion among consumers and other businesses. This results in an unfair market practice.
• Limited injunctionr: Remarkably, the judge did not consider the August 2025 edition banned. Because L.E. knew of the plans as early as late 2024 but did not sue until April 2025, an immediate shutdown so soon before the event would be disproportionate and amount to an abuse of rights. The cease and desist order, coupled with a penalty of 5,000 euros per day, thus applies only to future editions.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This ruling perfectly illustrates the delicate interplay between trademark law (BTIP and UMVo) and the broader catch-all provisions on fair market practices (CEL).

Article 2.19(1) BTIP states that one cannot claim trademark protection through the common law for a sign that is not (or is no longer) registered as a trademark. However, this does not mean that a party is outlawed. This judgement, relying on the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (2005/29/EC) and the Paris Union Treaty, confirms that misleading and confusing trade practices can always be challenged regardless of an active trademark registration.

The court emphasized that merely taking advantage of another's previous investments is not per se prohibited unless there are “attendant circumstances.” In this case, these circumstances consisted of the deliberate transfer of fame and image, the unlawful diversion of goodwill and the creation of confusion regarding commercial origin (arts. VI.97 and VI.105 CEL). This shows that intellectual property disputes can often be successfully thrown over the bow of unfair competition even when the trademark law position is shaky.

What this specifically means

This case contains important lessons for various players in the economy:

• For organizers and entrepreneurs: You may take inspiration from the past, but you may not present yourself as the rightful successor to a concept if you do not own the rights to it. Purposely creating confusion to ride on the goodwill of a predecessor is an infringement.
• For trademark owners: Sitting still is out of the question. If you know that a competitor is infringing on your rights, you must act immediately. Delaying with a summons in summary proceedings may result in a balancing of interests to your detriment, causing the judge - as in this ruling - to refuse to order an immediate cease and desist order for an abuse of rights.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Can I take action against competitors using my name even if my trademark registration has expired?
Yes. Even without a valid trademark registration, the Code of Economic Law (CEL) prohibits confusing and deceptive trade practices. If a competitor unfairly capitalizes on your accumulated reputation, you can claim its cessation.

Why didn't the judge immediately shut down the event in 2025, despite the infringement?
The judge applied a balancing of interests. Because the plaintiff had known about the infringing plans for months but initiated proceedings very late, the judge ruled that an immediate injunction so soon before the festival was disproportionately burdensome and amounted to an abuse of rights.

Should trademark proceedings in court always wait for a ruling from the Trademark Office (EUIPO/BOIP)?
Often it does. If proceedings for revocation or invalidity of the trademark are already pending before the European (EUIPO) or Benelux Trademark Office (BOIP), the national court should generally suspend the infringement action to avoid conflicting decisions, unless there are compelling special reasons not to do so.

Conclusion

Protecting your concepts, brand names and commercial goodwill requires a proactive and thoughtful strategy. Even when your trademark rights are under attack, the arsenal of rules surrounding unfair market practices in Belgium often provides a powerful lifeline. However, the timing of your legal action is critical.