• 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

Distinctive 3D Unionmark: Bullerjan wins before the ECJ

24. January 2019

The German furnace manufacturer Bullerjan was granted legal protection for a three-dimensional Unionmark in 2004. However, in the course of an application for cancellation, the necessary proof of genuine use of that mark was not provided in the form of the protected mark, but with an added word element. Yesterday the ECJ confirmed the distinctive character of the 3D mark with a word element.

Oven or oven Bullerjan?

Bullerjan 3DToni Klement, owner of the website ofenseite.com and plaintiff in ECJ’s ruling, filed an application for cancellation of the trade mark in February 2012. First, the contested mark has not been put to genuine use as a trade mark and, second, it has not been used in the form in which it was registered. The evidence submitted by the trade mark proprietor contained the protected 3D mark together with the word element “bullerjan”. The Board of Appeal of the EUIPO (Jan. 2014) and also the European Court (Sept. 2015, T-211/14) dismissed that action and found that genuine use of the disputed mark had also been proved in the altered form.

The case before the European Courts

Subsequently, in December 2015, the applicant lodged an appeal seeking the annulment of the original judgment. He put forward three pleas in law:

  • distortion of the evidence in the assessment of the distinctive character of the word element “Bullerjan”
  • contradictory reasoning in establishing the highly distinctive character of the mark at issue
  • the determination of the distinctive character of the mark at issue is wrongly based on the comparison of the shape protected by the mark with the shape of an oven in general, rather than on the comparison of the protected shape with the usual representations of the sector in all their diversity

In principle, these are also the questions referred for yesterday’s final ruling of the ECJ.

3D Unionmark Bullerjan
3D Unionmark Bullerjan in dispute

In its judgment of December 2016 (C-642/15 P), the ECJ set aside the original judgment and referred the case back to the Court of Justice of the Europan Union (CJEU) for a decision. In October 2017, however, the CJEU again dismissed the action (“judgment under appeal”, T:2017:715). Genuine use of a trademark is also proven if a trademark is used in conjunction with another trademark, provided that the trademark is still perceived as an indication of the origin of the product in question, the CJEU ruled. The overall perception of the mark in question is not altered by the sign on which the word mark Bullerjan is affixed. Furthermore, that word mark occupies a small area of the structure and is only visible when the structure is viewed from the front of the combustion chamber. The word mark in question is therefore less conspicuous than the shape of the product itself.

Proof of trade mark use with word element allowed

he ECJ confirmed the CJEU’s reasoning in assessing distinctiveness, including the addition of the word “Bullerjan”. The fact that the word mark “Bullerjan” may facilitate the determination of the commercial origin of the ovens in question does not conflict with the fact that it does not affect the distinctive character of the three-dimensional mark consisting of the shape of those goods (Article 15(1)(2)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009). Otherwise, the addition of a word element to a 3D mark, which can always facilitate the determination of the commercial origin of the goods concerned, would inevitably affect the distinctive character of the three-dimensional mark. According to the ECJ, a three-dimensional mark may be used in conjunction with a word element without this calling into question the indication of the commercial origin of the goods.

Distinctive character of the 3 D mark

The distinctiveness of the disputed 3D trademark was confirmed yesterday by the ECJ ruling. Plaintiff Klement had argued that the judgment under appeal contained no reason why the challenged three-dimensional mark should have a particularly high distinctive character, even though its shape was purely technical. Moreover, there is no explanation whatsoever as to the degree of distinctiveness of the challenged mark in terms of the word element ‘bullerjan’ added during use.

The ECJ rejected this. In the judgment under appeal (T:2017:715), the CJEU essentially found only that the mark in question deviated significantly from the customary practice and standard of the industry. The CJEU held that the mark at issue differed significantly from the customary practice in the sector, since the shape of a stove was generally more or less reminiscent of the shape of a fireplace. In addition, the court made it clear that the mark at issue did not consist, within the meaning of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009, exclusively of the shape of the product necessary to obtain a technical result.

Applicant should have proved that the mark is customary in the trade

Moreover, the degree of distinctiveness of the mark at issue was not only determined by comparing the shape protected by the mark with the shape of an oven in general, but the CFI also took account of the fact that, during the reference period, there were no other ovens with an identical or similar shape to that of the mark at issue.

The applicant had not produced any evidence to show that other manufacturers marketed similar ovens during the reference period or that the relevant public associates the shape of the mark with the goods covered by it. However, in yesterday’s judgment, the ECJ made it clear that it is for the applicant to prove, where appropriate, that the shape of the mark is customary in the trade in order to have it cancelled or revoked. However, the plaintiff had not provided such evidence, the ECJ clarified and dismissed the action in its entirety.

Would you also like to protect your brand or trademark?

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:

ECJ C:2019:48 (in German)

Picture:

Torfi007 /pixabay.com / CCO License  

 

 

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet  
  • share 

Category iconInternational Intellectual Property,  Trademark Law Tag iconUnionmark,  3D,  3D Trade Mark,  3D brands,  proof of use,  proof of genuine use of mark,  commercial origin of the goods,  3D Unionsmark,  Bullerjan

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