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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The case revolves around the well-known music festival \u2018Marktrock\u2019 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 \u2018Marktrock\u2019 and \u2018Marktrock Leuven\u2019. The last edition of the festival took place in 2017.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.\u201cs permission and explicitly profiled the event as a \u201dcomeback,\" using the same venue, the same concept (including talent contests and tribute bands) and visual nods to the past.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
L.E. initiated a cease and desist action for a violation of its trademark rights<\/a> and unfair market practices<\/a>. 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The President of the Dutch-speaking Enterprise Court of Brussels, as in summary proceedings, rendered the following decisions in this case:<\/p>\n\n\n\n This ruling perfectly illustrates the delicate interplay between trademark law (BTIP and UMVo) and the broader catch-all provisions on fair market practices (CEL).<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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)<\/a> and the Paris Union Treaty<\/a>, confirms that misleading and confusing trade practices can always be challenged regardless of an active trademark registration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court emphasized that merely taking advantage of another's previous investments is not per se prohibited unless there are \u201cattendant circumstances.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This case contains important lessons for various players in the economy:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Can I take action against competitors using my name even if my trademark registration has expired?<\/strong> Why didn't the judge immediately shut down the event in 2025, despite the infringement?<\/strong> Should trademark proceedings in court always wait for a ruling from the Trademark Office (EUIPO\/BOIP)?<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\nEnterprise court decision<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Legal analysis and interpretation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What this specifically means<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\nConclusion <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n