{"id":102158,"date":"2026-02-02T12:32:40","date_gmt":"2026-02-02T11:32:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/?p=102158"},"modified":"2026-02-02T12:32:54","modified_gmt":"2026-02-02T11:32:54","slug":"descriptive-trade-name-and-likelihood-of-confusion-how-to-protect-your-company-name-in-the-face-of-competition","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/beschrijvende-handelsnaam-en-verwarringsgevaar-hoe-beschermt-u-uw-bedrijfsnaam-bij-concurrentie\/","title":{"rendered":"Descriptive trade name and likelihood of confusion: how to protect your business name in the face of competition?"},"content":{"rendered":"

A trade name<\/a> emerges through its first public use, without the need for registration. But what if your chosen name is purely descriptive, such as \u201cDoctor's House\u201d? In a judgment dated Oct. 15, 2025, the Antwerp Court of Appeal held that even well-established, descriptive names enjoy only a minimal scope of protection. A competitor who uses a variant (for example, the Latin translation of the place name) does not necessarily infringe as a result.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The facts: a medical practice split in two<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The dispute arose after a rift between partners of the bv Doktershuis Antwerpen. Some former partners established a new company, called Doktershuis Antverpia, and settled just 1.5 kilometers from the original practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The original practice (Doktershuis Antwerpen) felt that the new name \u201cDoktershuis Antverpia\u201d was too similar to their trade name. They argued that this, combined with the identical medical activities and geographic proximity, led to unacceptable confusion among patients<\/sup>. They sought a cease-and-desist order for infringement of their trade name rights and unfair market practices<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court of Appeal decision<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Antwerp Court of Appeal had to rule on the thin line between protection and free competition. The ruling contains three main pillars:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. The term \u201cDoctor's House\u201d is trite:<\/strong> The Court confirmed that \u201cDoctor's House\u201d is a merely descriptive name for a medical center. Such banal names have little distinctiveness and therefore enjoy only minimal scope of protection.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Protection through integration:<\/strong> Although \u201cDoktershuis Antwerpen\u201d is descriptive, the Court held that this particular combination did acquire distinctiveness (incorporation) through prolonged and intensive use. Thus, the new practice was not allowed to use the exact name \u201cDoktershuis Antwerpen\u201d.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. No infringement by \u201cAntverpia\u201d:<\/strong> The crucial issue was whether \u201cDoktershuis Antverpia\u201d infringed on \u201cDoktershuis Antwerpen.\u201d The court ruled that it did not. Because the original name is weak and descriptive, a slight variation is sufficient to avoid confusion. The addition of \u201cAntverpia\u201d (Latin for Antwerp) and a visually different logo were sufficient to eliminate the risk of confusion.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Legal analysis and interpretation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    This ruling offers an interesting perspective on the operation of Article 8 of the Paris Union Treaty<\/a> in Belgian jurisprudence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    1. The autonomous protection of the trade name<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Unlike a trademark, a trade name does not need to be registered. Protection arises from the first public, visible and continuous use<\/sup><\/sup><\/sup>. The Court here reiterates the established principle that the trade name enjoys autonomous protection independent of corporate law formalities<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    2. The paradox of the descriptive name<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The trademark rights<\/a> sets high requirements for distinctiveness, but trade name law is more flexible. A trade name does not have to be original; even banal names can be protected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    However, the flip side of that coin is the scope of protection. As the Court states: \u201cBanal wording, after all, has little distinctiveness and thus may be limited in the scope of its territorial protection.\u201d<\/em>. Those who choose a name like \u201cDoctor's House\u201d must accept that competitors use terms that closely resemble this, as long as there is no identical copy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    3. Acquiring distinctiveness and likelihood of confusion<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Acquiring distinctiveness through familiarising means that a sign has become suitable through use to identify a business to the relevant public<\/sup>. Although \u201cDoktershuis Antwerpen\u201d was established, this did not give a monopoly on the concept of \u201cDoktershuis\u201d in that region.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In assessing likelihood of confusion, courts use three criteria:<\/p>\n\n\n\n