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

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • 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. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

NEUSCHWANSTEIN and its geographical origin before the ECJ

4. September 2018

Does the word mark NEUSCHWANSTEIN contain any indication of geographical origin? On Thursday the ECJ will likely judge the dispute between the Free State of Bavaria and BSGE, in which the most famous German castle plays a decisive role:

Neuschwanstein can be localized geographically = geographical origin?

NeuschwansteinPlaintiff is the Federal Association Souvenir – Gifts – Prizes of Honour e. V. (Bundesverband Souvenir – Geschenke – Ehrenpreise e. V.  (BSGE)). The action is brought against the Free State of Bavaria, which in 2011 had the word mark protected as a Union trademark at the European Trade Mark Office (EUIPO) in 17 different Nice classes. Already in 2005, the Free State of Bavaria had filed the national word mark NEUSCHWANSTEIN with the German Patent and Trade Mark Office (DPMA).
BSGE claims that the word mark Neuschwanstein contains information which serves to designate the geographical origin. After all, Neuschwanstein Castle can be located geographically. Nor does the mark in question have any distinctive character for the goods and services in question, since Schloss Neuschwanstein as such is not a place of production of goods or the provision of services. Even an infringement of Article 52.1  of EU Regulation No 207/2009 existed- the application for registration of the challenged mark had been made in bad faith.

The Cancellation Division of EUIPO dismissed the action brought by BSGE. There is no evidence that the mark in dispute is being used to market specific souvenirs and to offer certain services which might lead the relevant public to believe that it is a geographical indication of origin. In particular, EUIPO pointed out that the goods and services covered by the challenged mark were intended for daily consumption and would therefore only become a souvenir when the sign “NEUSCHWANSTEIN” was affixed. The BSGE appealed this decision to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet of ECJ

Neuschwanstein CastleThe Advocate General of the ECJ already stated that a possible link for a geographical location cannot only be seen in the place of manufacture of the goods in question. However, this does not necessarily mean that the sales location automatically gives this information. Because it is quite possible that a souvenir article carrying the attacked brand may be sold elsewhere than in the surroundings of Neuschwanstein Castle.
Moreover, a point of sale of a product is not descriptive of its properties, properties or other characteristics. This is only the case if a tradition, technique or a special craft is suspected by the consumer through the geographical location (example “Limoges” in relation to porcelain goods). However, this was not the case with Schloss Neuschwanstein and the disputed word mark.

As regards the question of the distinctive character of the goods and services in question, the Advocate General points out that the Nice classification does not include a category of’souvenirs. Consequently, the Court was right to examine whether the sign NEUSCHWANSTEIN is descriptive of the goods and services covered and intended for current consumption and daily life and not for souvenirs. In this context, however, NEUSCHWANSTEIN is not a descriptive sign.

Museums and cultural sites may market goods under their own name

The Advocate General also examined the applicant’s accusation that “NEUSCHWANSTEIN” was an advertising medium or a slogan. However, the sign allows the relevant public to distinguish both the commercial origin of the goods and services covered by the challenged mark and to refer to a visit to the castle. This dual function was the inevitable consequence of the decision of the owner of a museum – in this case the Free State of Bavaria – to have his name registered as a Union trademark. This was by no means forbidden. Rather, it was customary in business transactions that museums and distribution companies of cultural sites or tourist or cultural sights marketed goods under their respective names, whereby these designations were used as trademarks.

Therefore, the Advocate General recommended that the action be dismissed in its entirety. The fact is that registration of a geographical name as a Union trade mark can be refused only if the name can indicate an origin – because a geographical name as such does not automatically indicate such an origin. The example of the “Montblanc” pens, which no one could assume originated from the mountain of the same name, was mentioned very vividly.

Maybe also interesting in this context:

Geographical word mark: Swabian Glen Whisky- is anyone thinking of Scotland?

Dresden Christstollen also protected internationally?

Taste is decisive: Stage victory for Aldi in the Champagne dispute

 

Advice on EU trademarks needed, especially concerning geographical indication?

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

 

 

 

Sources:

Curia Europe: Neuschwanstein EU:C:2018:3

Pictures:

derwiki /pixabay.com / CCO License  

Uki_71 /pixabay.com / CCO License  

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconInternational Intellectual Property,  Trademark Law Tag iconBavaria,  cultural site,  ECJ,  EU geographical designation,  EU wordmark,  EUIPO,  Geographical word mark,  Germany,  museum,  Neuschwanstein,  Schloss Neuschwanstein,  Unionmark,  wordmark NEUSCHWANSTEIN

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

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • 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

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:

3. June 2024
What is the public allowed to know?

What is the public allowed to know?

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

Contact us or request a call back

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

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 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

Newsletter INT

© MD LEGAL Patentanwalt, European Patent Attorney PartG

Contact Form

 

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

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

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

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

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

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.