• 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
      • Dr. Christoph Hölscher
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Descriptive character in a foreign language – trademark registration allowed?

14. August 2018

Descriptive signs are excluded from trademark registration. There are often problems with trademark applications in Germany that have a more descriptive character in a foreign language. This also applies to the case of “Mangal”, which was decided by the Federal Patent Court in 2016 and therefore made a lasting mark on this debate.

Grill and MangalAnyone who has ever had a Turkish restaurant or host could have gotten to know a Mangal (often understood as a simple “grill”). “Mangal” was registered as a trademark in the Nice classes 32, 33 and 43 in 2008. But a Mangal is much more than just a grill and cannot be equated with the German term “Grill”. The Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht (BPatG)) had to clarify in 2016 whether the term must therefore be regarded as purely descriptive or not and justifies a partial cancellation of the trademark.

Facts of the case

The defendant is the owner of the Mangal trademark, which is registered in the Nice classes 32, 33 and 43 for various beverages and catering and accommodation services.

At the request of the applicant, the German Patent and Trade Mark Office granted the request and decided to partially cancel the challenged trade mark for Class 43, but rejected the request for cancellation for the two remaining classes.

The DPMA relied on the fact that the Turkish term “Mangal” was understood as “Grill” and therefore had a purely descriptive character. Thereupon the defendant filed an appeal against this partial cancellation and requested the annulment of the decision of the DPMA before the Federal Patent Court.

Mangal not to be equated with German “Grill”

The Federal Patent Court annulled the request for partial cancellation made by the DPMA.

It is true that the Arabic-Turkish word “Mangal” refers to a fireplace-like heating device in which the charcoal is made to glow outside the house and then carried in, for cooking food, but cannot be equated with the German term “Grill”. Unlike the German word “Grill”, however, Mangal does not also mean “snack” or “grill restaurant”. A grill in the sense of a restaurant is called “Izgara lokantasi”.

For this reason alone, it had no descriptive character for the Class 43 service. Furthermore, the fact that a “Mangal” could be used in a Turkish barbecue restaurant is not in itself sufficient, as this does not justify a direct connection to the service.

Moreover, the mark was also not ready for cancellation because the meaning of the sign’Mangal’ was only recognised by a small, ultimately no longer relevant part of German trade in Germany. It is noted that the approximately 4.2 million Turkish or Turkish customers who lived in Germany at the filing year (2008) did not constitute a demarcable group, especially as the list of goods and services of the trademark was not specifically aimed at such groups of persons. It has not been proven that even non-Turkish consumers understand the term “Mangal”. Not even because Turkish is not a world trade language.

The Federal Patent Court rejects the existence of a further obstacle to protection against bad faith (Sec. 8 II No. 10 Trade Mark Law) with reference to the already established, not purely descriptive character of the drawing “Mangal”.

Would you also like to protect your trademark rights?

Then please do not hesitate to contact us. Our patent attorneys and attorneys at law are experienced and highly qualified in all areas of intellectual property law, both nationally and internationally.

Request your call-back without any obligations!

CAT-call_en

Sources:

BPatG München 26 W (pat) 64/11

Picture:

moschnifoto /pixabay.com / CCO License  

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconInternational Intellectual Property,  Trademark Law Tag icontrademark protection,  wordmark,  Trademark,  descriptive character,  equated

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

Recent Posts

  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022
  • EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible 24. February 2022

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:

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

25. February 2022
CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

24. February 2022
EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

21. February 2022
CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

15. February 2022
SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

10. February 2022
CFI: Shoes MADE IN ITALY

CFI: Shoes MADE IN ITALY

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Torhaus Westhafen
Speicherstrasse 59
D – 60327 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

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
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

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

Contact Form

 

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

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

Kontaktformular

 

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

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