Decision to transfer .eu-domain within ADR procedures may be irrelevant

Publication date: 18/07/2014

17048 times read
 :: 10880 Votes  

Judgement of OLG Stuttgart (Higher Regional Court Stuttgart) of 28/05/2014, file number: 2 U 147/13

In case that within an ADR procedure it will be decided on a .eu-domain transfer and a period of 30 days up to the notification of the decision will be set to introduce a corresponding action before a German civil court, the ADR decision will become ineffective. A claim regarding the transfer of the domain, or .eu-domain, cannot be pronounced since the owner of an identical name as the second-level-domain would be then better off than without the infringing activity. Especially at .eu-domains there is the possibility of a so-called dispute entry, from...

Category: Judgements, Entscheidungen, Internet Law, Domain Law, Trademark Law, Deutsche Marke, Company Labelling, Danger of Confusion

"Golden Toast" is not a Community trademark

Publication date: 25/08/2010

11059 times read
 :: 7235 Votes  

Judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 19/05/2010, file number: T-163/08

According to the European Court, the word mark "Golden Toast" cannot be registered as a community trademark. The registration is contrary to the purely descriptive quality of the term. In Germany might be "Golden Toast" understood as operating origin. In English, however, the term would refer to a product “suitable for toasting” and golden coloured. The refusal in one part of the community denies the trademark registration in general.

Category: Trademark Law, Trademark Registration, Company Labelling, Entscheidungen

“Stimmt´s” is protected as a newspaper title

Publication date: 26/07/2010

8777 times read
 :: 6038 Votes  

Judgement of OLG Hamburg (Higher Regional Court Hamburg) of 12/05/2010, file number: 3 U 58/08

The name “Stimmt´s”, for the heading of a quality weekly newspaper, is protected. This happens since the colloquial form of the question has a minimum level of originality and a distinctive character for the consumer. The operator of a commercial Internet portal is therefore not allowed to use the name “Stimmt´s” for the knowledge rubric of his website, which is concerned with similar matters. 

Category: Trademark Law, Company Labelling, Entscheidungen

"Masterpiece" is not suitable as a mark for furniture

Publication date: 23/07/2010

12610 times read
 :: 7952 Votes  

Judgement of BPatG (Decision of the Federal Patent Court) of 02/06/2010, file number: 28 W (pat) 34/10

The trademark "Masterpiece" cannot be protected as a trademark for furniture, especially for waterbeds, since it does not represent a mark of origin of a particular company. The target audiences understand the term as excellent, something of technical or sporting nature, something which can be related with a masterful execution, or a masterful design. The name describes the quality of goods, and therefore it cannot be registered as a descriptive mark – not even taking into account the graphic design.

Category: Trademark Law, Trademark Registration, Company Labelling, Entscheidungen

The Opel lightening and the toy car

Publication date: 18/01/2010

12196 times read
 :: 8418 Votes  

Press Release of BGH (Federal Supreme Court) nr. 09/2009 about the judgement of 14/01/2010, file number: I ZR 88/08

Opel has tried to prohibit the use of the protected lightening on model cars. The Federal Supreme Court denied the rights which are usually conceded within the scope of trademark protection. On the one hand, there is no danger of confusion between the model cars and the real vehicle; on the other, the consumer perceivers the model car as a reproduction of the brand in the shape of a toy and not as an indication of origin or company labelling.

Category: Trademark Law, Danger of Confusion, Company Labelling, Press Releases, Entscheidungen

CCCP and DDR: No trademark infringement on clothes imprint

Publication date: 18/01/2010

10789 times read
 :: 7355 Votes  

Press Release of BGH (Federal Supreme Court) nr. 10/2009 about the judgement of 14/01/2010, file number: I ZR 82/08

Third parties are allowed to imprint on clothing symbols and writings of former Eastern Bloc as for example “CCCP” (USSR) including hammer and sickle, though these signs are protected as trademark for clothing. However, the imprint of the signs does not represent any Trademark infringement since it does not offend any trademark rights of the trademark holder. The imprints are not realised as origin of the products or as company labelling or branding; but just as decorative element.

Category: Trademark Law, Company Labelling, Press Releases, Entscheidungen

! cannot be eligible for registration as a trademark

Publication date: 01/10/2009

15528 times read
 :: 10070 Votes  

Judgement of EuG (European Court of First Instance) of 30/09/2009, file number: T-75 / 08

Due to the claim of the enterprise JOOP!, the European Court of First Instance has decided that an exclamation sign cannot be registered as a community trademark. The company requested the registration of two community trademarks by the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM). The OHIM rejected the registration because of the lack of distinctiveness. For the consumer it is just an exclamation sign which is not written in an unusual way, it is only promoting and an eye-catcher.

Category: Trademark Law, Trademark Registration, Company Labelling, Danger of Confusion, Entscheidungen

"Passion play"

Publication date: 03/07/2009

17721 times read
 :: 11167 Votes  

Decision of BPatG (Federal Patent Court) of 28/05/2009, file number: 25 W (pat) 70/08

The federal patent court had to decide whether the brand "Passion play" has, in the area of layout creations of web sites, enough distinctiveness for the, not only on the regional level but, worldwide known passion play which presents the popular dramatic representation of the life and death of Christ. The judges denied this because of the absent material relation of layout creations of the, in general widespread, image of the passion play. They were against a registration of the brand.

Category: Trademark Law, Right to the Use of a Name, Company Labelling, Trademark Registration, Entscheidungen

"miro" isn’t "Miró"

Publication date: 03/07/2009

11419 times read
 :: 7646 Votes  

Decision of BPatG (Federal Patent Court) of 24/06/2009, file number: 24 W (pat) 78/07

The federal patent court had to decide whether the registered word mark and figurative mark "miro" which stands for hairdresser's goods like hair shampoo, hair tonic, setting lotion etc. injures the also registered brand "Miró" due to its resemblance. The judges recognised that both concepts are normally same emphasised and therefore a mistake would be conceivable. Since, however, the brand "Miró" stands for other products, namely for perfumeries and beauty care, they excluded a legal violation and therefore also a trade mark infringement.

Category: Trademark Law, Company Labelling, Danger of Confusion, Entscheidungen

UHU – Trademark with secondary meaning

Publication date: 24/06/2009

11981 times read
 :: 8719 Votes  

Judgement of BGH (Federal Supreme Court) of 19/02/2009, file number: I ZR 195/06

The bid of the firmness is valid for the trademark with secondary meaning. In case of the claimed colour combination in a trademark with secondary meaning, the systematic order and the relation of the paints must be determined clearly and unambiguously...

Category: Trademark Law, Company Labelling, Unfair Competition Law, Entscheidungen

Augsburger Puppenkiste (The Augsburg Puppet Theatre)

Publication date: 24/06/2009

16242 times read
 :: 10200 Votes  

Judgement of BGH (Federal Supreme Court) of 18/12/2008, file number: I ZR 200/06

The component "Puppenkiste" is in the company sign "Augsburger Puppenkiste" to label the marking of a puppet theatre originally weak sign and, therefore, without distinguishing characteristic to assert itself as a catchword-like advice to the company...

Category: Internet Law, Domain Law, Trademark Law, Company Labelling, Entscheidungen

Post from region Post

Publication date: 12/06/2009

15643 times read
 :: 10677 Votes  

Judgement of BGH (Federal Supreme Court) of 02/04/2009, file number: I ZR 209/06

a) The protection limit of § 23 No. 2 MarkenG (Trademark Act) should be settled within the purpose of obtaining the possibility to all economic parties, to use describing specifications of their products.

b) Because of the use of a describing concept in a sign and according to § 14 paragraph 2 No. 2 MarkenG (Trademark Act), danger of confusion with an older existing trademark which was settled from the describing concept, does not necessarily justify the acceptance of an immoral contract., § 23 No. 2 MarkenG (Trademark Act) ...

Category: Trademark Law, Trademark Cancellation, Company Labelling, Right to the Use of a Name, Entscheidungen

ostsee - POST?!

Publication date: 12/06/2009

11739 times read
 :: 8185 Votes  

Judgement of BGH (Federal Supreme Court) of 02/04/2009, file number: I ZR 78/06

a) The interests of competitors in the use of a describing concept should be considered not in the calculation of the distinctiveness of the case sign, but in protection of § 23 No. 2 MarkenG (Trademark Act) and the protection of known signs within the scope of the attribute “without justifying reason in unfair manner”.

b) The Trademark “POST” is for services in the area of transportation pure describing and has no distinctiveness at an enforcement degree of more than 80%.

Category: Trademark Law, Company Labelling, Unfair Competition Law, Entscheidungen

lawfirm.biz :: Law Firm Hild & Colleagues :: Konrad-Adenauer-Allee 55 :: 86150 Augsburg ::::
Tel +49 821 - 420 795 0 :: Fax +49 821 - 420 795 95 :: [email protected] :: www.lawfirm.biz