Image: http://www.pitch-briochepasquier.fr/
Battle between the Pitch de Brioche Pasquier brand and start-ups
Pitch, the trademark of Brioche Pasquier, is at the heart of several disputes. Indeed, the group French pastry and industrial pastry manufacturers plans to pursue start-ups operating under the name Pitch. This trademark is registered in particular for its brioches.
For start-ups, the " pitch The "elevator pitch" is an English term referring to the dynamic synthesis of their entrepreneurial project in a few seconds ("elevator pitch") or a few minutes. It is also a brief presentation and a short and effective sales pitch. Some companies therefore register trademarks composed of this term. Brioche Pasquier considers that Pitch is mostly the name of his famous chocolate or jam brioche. Consequently, since the beginning of the year, the industrial group has been defending its brand. Its fear? That this name is subject to brand degeneration.
The Pitch case
According to Le Figaro, six start-ups received registered letters from the Pasquier Group's Industrial Property Counsel in January. Their contents? These letters demand that they renounce their trademarks containing the term Pitch or the use of that name for their products, services and events. Otherwise, Brioche Pasquier plans to sue them.
By this means, the company wishes to reserve the exclusive use of this name for its filled brioches, but not only. Brioche Pasquier has registered several trademarks Pitch since the 1980s for buns. She also holds some in class 41 for the following services: "Education; training; entertainment; organization and conduct of symposiums, conferences or congresses... " These services concern the " pitch "dear to start-ups.
The consequences are not long in coming.
On February 12, 2018, the Lettre du Petit Web announces the end of Frédéric Bascuñana's Pitch Parties. He is in particular the founder of Monster France and a specialist in short and punchy professional presentations.
In addition, Brioche Pasquier's missives trigger the #PitchGate on social networks. Some startups and Internet users are igniting the web with this bad buzz. They denounce the abusive appropriation of the name "Brioche Pasquier". Pitch.
Brioche Pasquier reacted on February 13, 2018 with a press release. The company confirms that it opposes the use of its trademark by third parties. It also points out that this prohibition does not concern everyday language.
But why is the Brioche Pasquier company acting like this?
Brioche Pasquier is looking for an almost total monopoly on the name PITCH
There are many initiatives aimed at start-ups and entrepreneurs, which use the term Pitch: Ecole du Pitch, Docteur Pitch, Pitch in the plane, Pitch ta Boîte... Pasquier seems to have embarked on a real crusade against them.
Common sense dictates that one cannot but be shocked by this situation, which seems ubuesque. Indeed, these societies have nothing to do with food. Yet, legally, it would almost hold up: indeed, Brioche Pasquier regularly re-registers the PITCH trademark in many classes (almost the entire Nice classification was referred to in a French filing of 2016, allowing Pasquier to monopolize the PITCH name for, for example, paint, cosmetics, firearms, tobacco, travel organization services or medical services).
The concern is that a trademark does not need to be used for 5 years after filing to be opposable to third parties. Pasquier can therefore prevent anyone from using the name PITCH for virtually any product or service.
Gaël Duval, creator of the "Pitch in the Plane" events for entrepreneurs in collaboration with an airline company, explains in Le Figaro that "training dedicated to start-ups does not overshadow a bun. "Unfortunately, the INPI does not hear it this way and welcomed Pasquier's opposition to its trademark.
In addition, the pastry group would like to avoid its brand Pitch degenerates by slipping into our everyday speeches. Indeed, his fear would be the trivialization of the name Pitch and the loss of its brand status. However, a trademark owner who fails to defend his trademark may find himself unable to act afterwards. This is what happened in 2004 in the Piña Colada case. Given his activity, Pasquier is quite right to defend his trademark against other trademarks that would target pastry, but does that not go too far? It would be interesting if the Court of Appeal were to hear an appeal against a decision of the INPI, in order to find out what the judge has to say about this.