THE BOTTOM LINE
- Risk of Confusion is Key: Using a trade name nearly identical to an established competitor’s, even in an adjacent industry, can be blocked if there is a risk of public confusion. The court will consider market overlap, geographic region, and evidence of actual mix-ups.
- Domain Squatting is Risky Business: Registering and using a domain name that mirrors a competitor’s trade name is considered an unlawful act. A court can order you to cease all business-related use, effectively rendering the domain useless for your enterprise.
- Injunctions Don’t Equal Ownership: Successfully stopping a competitor from using your trade name does not automatically entitle you to seize their infringing domain name. This Dutch court ruled it could only stop the unlawful use, not force a transfer of the domain asset itself.
THE DETAILS
A recent summary judgment from the District Court of Oost-Brabant provides a sharp reminder for businesses about the protections and limitations of Dutch trade name law. The case involved “Woonhub,” a real estate agency established in 2020, and a newer construction firm founded in 2024 that began operating under the nearly identical name “WoonHub.” The real estate firm sued, claiming the construction company was infringing on its trade name rights and causing confusion in the marketplace. The court largely agreed, ordering the newer company to cease using the name and its corresponding domain, woonhub.com.
The court’s decision hinged on the central principle of the Dutch Trade Name Act: the likelihood of confusion. Despite the defendant being a construction company and the plaintiff a real estate agency, the court found their services were closely related within the broader property market. Critically, the plaintiff demonstrated that it often refers clients to construction companies, creating a clear potential for customers to mistakenly believe the two “WoonHub” entities were affiliated. This risk was not merely theoretical; the plaintiff presented evidence of a colleague asking if they had opened a new office upon seeing the defendant’s signage. This, combined with the near-identical names and shared geographic market, was enough to justify an injunction.
A key element of the dispute was the nature of the name itself. The defendant might have argued that “Woon” (Dutch for “living”) is purely descriptive and cannot be monopolized. The court, however, found that the combination “Woonhub” possessed sufficient distinctiveness to be protectable. This illustrates an important principle for brand strategy: even names with descriptive elements can gain legal protection once they are established in the market and function as a unique identifier for a business. The court balanced the public interest in keeping descriptive terms available with the need to prevent competitors from piggybacking on an established company’s goodwill.
The most insightful part of the ruling concerned the defendant’s domain name, woonhub.com. The court deemed the defendant’s use of this domain for its business to be an unlawful act (a tort), directly tied to the trade name infringement. Consequently, it ordered the defendant to stop using it. However, the plaintiff’s demand for the domain to be forcibly transferred was rejected. The court found no specific legal basis in Dutch law to compel the transfer of a domain name as a remedy in a trade name dispute. This creates a fascinating legal standoff: the defendant is left holding a domain name it cannot legally use for its business, while the plaintiff, despite winning the case, cannot acquire it through this judgment. This highlights a crucial strategic point for businesses: litigation can neutralize a threat, but it may not always secure the asset you want.
SOURCE
Source: Rechtbank Oost-Brabant
