The Quick and Easy Guide to German and EU Intellectual Property Law, Trademarks and Copyright
Random header image... Refresh for more!

No exclamation mark for JOOP!

In Case T‑191/08 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) declined JOOP!’s motion to permit registration of a single exclamation mark placed inside a rectangle as a Community trademark.

The court ruled that this mark lacks distinctive character and therefore can not be registered as a trademark, pursuant to Art 7 Sec. 1b) of Regulation No 40/94. The single exclamation mark is a mere eye catcher, not suitable to convey the origin of goods.

The court also rejected the point that the mark had acquired a secondary meaning as a trademark pursuant to Art. 7 Sec. 3 of Regulation 40/94. JOOP! not only failed to deliver proof in time. The documents provided referred to the German market only and not – as it would have been necessary – to all markets in all member states.

Bookmark and Share

October 12, 2009   5 Comments

K-Swiss vs Puma

As the German business magazine Wirtschaftswoche reports in its online issue, the German sporting goods manufacturer Puma is facing a battle in the US over its trademarked “form strip”, a bended leather strip. One of Puma’s competitors, K-Swiss, claims that Puma’s trademark application with the US Trademark and Patent Office was erroneous.

K-Swiss argues that Puma had deliberately given false information when filing their trademark application. Allegedly the German entity (Puma AG) misrepresented that its North American entity, Puma North America, is co-proprietor of the trademark, by declaring Puma North America to be the only one having any rights to this mark.

Wirtschaftswoche states that the background of this matter is an ongoing dispute between the two companies in which Puma alleges K-Swiss to use a leather strip on one of its shoes similar to Puma’s formstrip.

Bookmark and Share

August 31, 2009   No Comments

Mineral water from Alaska, anyone?

This case is all about the question if the word “Alaska” unfolds descriptive character for beverages such as mineral water.

In 1998 the German brewery Schwarzbräu GmbH had registered a figurative Community trade mark consisting of the word “Alaska” and the picture of an ice bear on a sheet of ice (Nice class 32).  In 2001 the German beverage company Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH filed a request to declare the registration of this trade mark invalid, based on an alleged infringement of  Article 7(1)(c) Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (absolute ground for refusal for marks consisting exclusively of signs which indicate geographic origin). This request was rejected by the Cancellation Division. The appeal against this decision was also unsuccessful.

The Court of First Instance confirmed OHIM’s decisions. It did not see the mark having any descriptive character in relation to the goods concerned.

The relevant circles of the public do not make a connection between this mark, namely the word, Alaska (as a region) and as the origin of mineral water or other non-alcoholic beverages.

As far as Rhön-Sprudel had referred to a decision of the Federal Court of Switzerland, the court highlighted, that OHIM’s decisions were to be judged exclusively on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and its interpretation by a Community Judge. Not really surprising, is it?

(European Court of First Instance, T‑225/08, 8. July 2009)

Bookmark and Share

July 17, 2009   No Comments

Single Letter “α” Protectable As Community Trademark

A single letter (here the Greek letter Alpha “α” is protectable as a figurative trademark without further enhancement or graphic design.

It was disputed that the sign at issue has distinctive character because it consists only of one single letter. A lack of distinctiveness is an absolute ground for refusal to register a Community Trademark pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94.

The court has decided, that a single letter in deed can have the distinctive character required under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 if it is suitable in principle in the individual case to distinguish the origin of a product in the eyes of the relevant circles of the public.

The court reasons that:

“It is apparent from the case-law that Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 draws no distinction between the different categories of trade mark and that the criteria for assessment of the distinctive character of trade marks which consist of a single letter are the same as those applicable to the other categories of trade mark.”

The European Court of First Instance has therefore referred back the trademark application to OHIM for re-examination in the light of the grounds of the judgement.

European Court of First Instance (T‑23/07, 29th April 2009)

Bookmark and Share

June 17, 2009   No Comments