{"id":99675,"date":"2025-08-09T10:13:31","date_gmt":"2025-08-09T09:13:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/?p=99675"},"modified":"2025-08-09T10:16:28","modified_gmt":"2025-08-09T09:16:28","slug":"does-a-website-and-social-media-suffice-to-protect-your-trade-name-in-belgium","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/volstaan-een-website-en-social-media-om-uw-handelsnaam-in-belgie-te-beschermen\/","title":{"rendered":"Is a website and social media enough to protect your trade name in Belgium?"},"content":{"rendered":"

A strong trade name is a valuable asset for any business. It is the name under which you trade and become known to your customers. In Belgium the protection of a trade name<\/a> not by a registration, but by the first public, visible and continuous use<\/strong> of it on Belgian territory. Many entrepreneurs, especially foreign ones, incorrectly assume that an online presence that is also visible in Belgium automatically suffices for this protection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A judgment of the president of the enterprise court Antwerp of January 22, 2025<\/a> sheds a bright light on this issue. The ruling highlights the strict requirements that courts place on proof of \"use\" and perfectly illustrates why a proactive legal strategy for your trade name is indispensable. As attorneys specializing in corporate and intellectual property law, we explain this ruling for you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The facts: a battle between \"Fruitful-Berries\" and \"Fruitful Ventures\"<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In this case, two companies, the Belgian NV Frescura and its Dutch subsidiary Fruitful-Berries BV<\/a>, to the court. They were of the opinion that the BV Fruitful Ventures<\/a> infringed on their older trade name \"Fruitful-Berries.\" They therefore demanded that Fruitful Ventures immediately cease using its name.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The bottom line: proving real use in Belgium<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The central question before the court was whether the plaintiffs could prove that they actually used their trade name \"Fruitful-Berries\" in the Belgian market before the defendant did. After all, the protection of a trade name is territorially limited to the area where it is known. This principle is enshrined in Article 8 of the Paris Union Treaty<\/a>, which states that a trade name is protected without an obligation of filing or registration. Thus, proof of first use is crucial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court was particularly clear in its ruling, distinguishing between the two plaintiffs:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. For the Belgian parent company (NV Frescura):<\/strong> The claim was quickly dismissed. The company did not even claim, and thus did not demonstrate, that it had ever used the name \"Fruitful-Berries\" itself on the Belgian market. Its claim was therefore manifestly unfounded.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. For the Dutch subsidiary (Fruitful-Berries BV):<\/strong> This company did argue it was operating in Belgium, but failed to support this with convincing evidence. The court ruled that the following elements insufficient<\/strong> were to demonstrate real and effective use on Belgian territory:\n