• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees’ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Karl-Hermann Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Clara Elinor Grünewald
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Community of heirs Baklan wins in trademark dispute BAKTAT

2. July 2018

The protected trademark BAKTAT, very well known in the Turkish food trade, was the focus of a long-standing dispute between the heirs of the actual trademark owner. As early as August 2017, the OLG Karlsruhe ruled: the wife and children of the deceased trademark owner are the legal trademark right holders. Now the judgement is also final and legally binding.


By order of 21 June 2018, the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) now also rejected the appeal of the opposing party (order of the BGH of 21 June 2018, AZ BGH I ZR 142/17, not yet published). Thus, the judgement of the Higher District Court Karlsruhe (OLG Karlsruhe) of August 4, 2018 is now legally binding. The brothers of the deceased trademark owner – the entrepreneurs of Bak Kardesler mbH – lose the trademark right for the well-known trademark BAKTAT. Victorious is the community of heirs Baklan, the wife and children of the deceased trademark owner.

Background to the BAKTAT litigation

BAKTATBAKTATBAKTAT is a well-known brand name in Germany for pickled or cooked fruit and vegetables as well as spices and pasta in the Turkish food trade. In the now validly decided case the plaintiff family Baklan and brothers Baklan met before the regional court Mannheim and in second instance before the Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe (6 U 142/15 23 O 1/15 LG Mannheim). The Baklan family – the wife and children of the deceased trademark proprietor – brought an action for the transfer of the trademarks and for the defendant Mustafa and Halil Baklan – the brothers of the deceased trademark proprietor – and their company BAK Kardesler Lebensmittelhandelsgesellschaft mbH to cease using the BAKTAT and BAK trademarks.

What had happened?

In 1991 the testator had the word marks BAKTAT and BAK protected (DWz 2 036 935 word: BAKTAT and No. DWz 2 040 988 word: BAK) for fruit and vegetables, pulses, pasta and also sausage, cheese and poultry. However, the trademark owner died in a car accident in May 1992.

German or Turkish law?

BAKTAT BIOOnly a few days after the death of the trademark owner in 1992, the wife gave a power of attorney to a Turkish notary for herself and her minor children for the brothers of the deceased Halil Baklan, Mustafa Baklan and Ali Baklan – but without the power of attorney containing a rule allowing the brothers to do business in person. With reference to the power of attorney, Mustafa Baklan then declared in May 1994 in a “declaration of transfer” for the heirs the assignment of the disputed marks and applied for the transfer of the marks to BAK Kardesler Lebensmittelhandelsgesellschaft mbH, the company he had founded. Baktat has been used for comprehensive food labelling in the Turkish food trade. In addition, the defendant also had the disputed word marks protected as word and figurative marks in 1993.

In 2013, the wife and sons of the original trademark owner sued for transfer of the trademarks and for injunction.

The defendants claimed, inter alia, that it was applicable under Turkish law under the power of attorney, since they were Turkish nationals and the power of attorney had been issued in Turkey. And according to Turkish law, the prohibition of self-business does not exist and this should – which is not the case – have been expressly agreed.

This defendant’s argument was not considered relevant by the court. In the opinion of the Regional Court (LG Mannheim) and the Higher Regional Court (OLG Karlruhe), German law is applicable for the examination as to whether the assignment of the German trademark by the plaintiffs resident in Germany has been effectively made to the defendant resident in Germany. Both the Regional Court and the Higher Regional Court therefore assumed that the description of the marks of May 1994 was invalid because it was an inadmissible in-self transaction according to § 181 BGB and the plaintiffs’ power of attorney did not contain an exemption.

This has now also been confirmed by the BGH by the non-approval of the revision.

But this was not surprising. The case law of the Federal Supreme Court has sufficiently addressed the fact that for a power of attorney which, as here, affects private international law, it must satisfy the legal group to which the associated legal transaction belongs.

Non-use of the trademark

In the dispute, the plaintiff’s family had for years had no knowledge of the testator’s trademark applications or of the ineffective transaction within itself. The plaintiff’s family was also unaware that they themselves could own the trademarks. Accordingly, the defendants claimed that the plaintiffs’ claims were excluded for lack of use of the mark by the plaintiffs, but in any case they were forfeited under Section 21 (1) MarkenG because the defendant used identical marks (the word and figurative mark BAKTAT) in his own name for his own purposes. The claims are also statute-barred.

The court did not share this view. The Court declared that, pending a final determination that the plaintiffs themselves are owners of the trade marks, it was unreasonable to expect them to use the trade marks or to allow a third party to use them. In any case, however, the defendant could not invoke the objection of non-use under Sections 25, 26 MarkenG. Because the raising of the objection is inadmissible because of abuse of rights according to § 242 BGB, so the court.

This, too, has now been indirectly confirmed by the BGH’s rejection of the appeal regarding the non-admission of the appeal.

What does the judgment of the Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe mean for the future?

The judgement confirms once again that the question of forfeiture of trademark rights presupposes that one also knows about one’s rights and that it is not reasonable to use a trademark if one has no knowledge of one’s rights or has not yet been legally established that one is the owner of the trademark.

Even more important, however, was the ruling in the clear statement on the interpretation of signed authorization. A signed authorization and power of attorney must satisfy the legal group to which the associated legal transaction belongs. The interpretation of a power of attorney does not depend on the nationality of the representatives, nor does it depend on the country in which the power of attorney was granted.

Are you interested in national or international brand or trade mark protection?

Please take your chance and contact us. Our lawyers are experienced in trademark and patent law, national and international law.

 

 

 

Sources:

Press release of OLG Karlsruhe, August 2017

Pictures:

Judgement 04.08.2017 Az. 6 U 142/15

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet  
  • share 

Category iconInternational Intellectual Property,  Trademark Law Tag iconBGH,  Turkish law,  transfer of the trademarks,  BAK Kardesler Lebensmittelhandelsgesellschaft mbH,  final,  legally binding,  power of attorney,  signed authorization,  food labelling,  Community of heirs,  BAKTAT,  Baklan

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: International Intellectual Property

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law
This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Recent Posts

  • Own trademark application fails – despite comparable trademarks: Equal treatment? 5. March 2021
  • Intel to pay 2.2 billion in damages – to VLSI / Fortress Investment 5. March 2021
  • BGH “FRAND II” – SEP Licensing as Distributor? 2. March 2021
  • Suspension of infringement proceedings 1. March 2021

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

5. March 2021
Own trademark application fails – despite comparable trademarks: Equal treatment?

Own trademark application fails – despite comparable trademarks: Equal treatment?

1. March 2021
Suspension of infringement proceedings

Suspension of infringement proceedings

16. February 2021
BGH: Black Forest ham – not only packaged in the Black Forest

BGH: Black Forest ham – not only packaged in the Black Forest

16. February 2021
UK trademark after Brexit: earlier UK trademark in opposition

UK trademark after Brexit: earlier UK trademark in opposition

11. February 2021
EU figurative marks: Panthé figurative mark – a panther mark?

EU figurative marks: Panthé figurative mark – a panther mark?

9. February 2021
BGH ruling: Classe E versus German E-Klasse

BGH ruling: Classe E versus German E-Klasse

Footer

Contact

Franklinstr. 61-63
D-60486 Frankfurt am Main
Germany

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Customer Reviews

Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB Patentrecht, Markenrecht, Eigentum hat 4,78 von 5 Sternen 23 Bewertungen auf ProvenExpert.com

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Info secure emails
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

© Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form