Danger of Confusion

Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 08/07/2010, file number: T-30/09

The Court of Justice of the European Union affirmed the likelihood of confusion between the word marks “peerstorm” and “PETER STORM”, both registered for clothing articles. Both trademarks have a visual, phonetic and conceptual similarity. Although the use of signs, made up of first and last name, is usual in the clothing sector, a likelihood of confusion exists if both trademarks are used for the same product line.

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.

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.

Judgement of OLG Hamm (Higher Regional Court Hamm) of 11/08/2009, file number: 4 U 109/09

If an anew established law firm uses a letterhead or an Internet site in almost identical form as a closed lawyer’s society, just because one of the founders belonged to the former partnership, an unlawful misleading can be understood. Since, thereby, the closed society appears to exist furthermore.

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.