• 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

New word creation denied as German word mark

26. February 2019

Word marks must not be descriptive, therefore new word creations as word marks are popular. The German BPatG now rejected the word creation ColorPlugin as a trademark registration and specified special features in word formation with regard to protectability and distinctiveness.

word creation ColorPluginIn 2016, the applicant filed an application for registration of the signs ColorPlugin as a German word mark. The application was filed in Nice Classes 1 and 16 and in Classes 9 (“Software programs”) and 42 (“Development, creation and maintenance of software programs”).

The German Patent and Trademark Office (DPMA) refused to register the mark in the Nice Classes 9 and 42. The mark applied for is not distinctive. Furthermore, “ColorPlugin” constitutes a meaningful descriptive overall statement in relation to the goods and services refused: the software technical extension which complements the functionality of the main program in terms of colours.

The applicant argued that the application mark did not contain any directly descriptive conceptual content. It is a new word creation which is not covered by lexical terms and, because of the internal capitalisation of the sign which is written together, has a strikingly unusual word composition and therefore a certain distinctiveness. Similar new word creations have already been heard before the European Court, iGrill in October 2018, #darferdas in December 2018and Life versus LifeCoins in November 2018.

ColorPlugin word creation rejected as trademark for software

The Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht, BPatG) followed the decision of the DPMA to reject the trade mark. Word marks are devoid of distinctive character if consumers merely assign to them a descriptive term which is in the foreground. A word mark is also devoid of distinctive character if it is also composed of common words of the German language or of a common foreign language, which are always understood only as such and not as a means of distinguishing.

Moreover, the BPatG clarified that signs which, although not directly related to the goods and services claimed, nevertheless had a close descriptive link with them were also devoid of distinctive character. Consequently, the trade mark applied for, “ColorPlugin”, is devoid of any distinctive character.

Special feature for word marks for software and EDP

Nevertheless, it must be considered that the distinctive character of trade marks applied for in respect of computer software or the creation of computer programs can be denied only if there is a direct and specific link between the meaning of the trade mark and the goods or services claimed, which is immediately obvious to the relevant public (MarkenG, Paragraph 8). However, the BPatG also took this for granted. All the goods and services claimed by the applicant relate to software programs and are thus directly related to the application mark, the German Court summarised. In this respect, the disputed application mark could be understood either as an indication of content or as a purpose.

Special features of word creation

The Court added that ColorPlugin also did not have any special features in the word formation which could establish protectability and specified this:

  • The fact that the terms “color” and “plugin” are written together is not unusual in the language of advertising and does not, therefore, in itself confer protection.
  • This internal capitalisation, which accompanies it, also constitutes an ordinary means of design widely used in product advertising and is not sufficient to establish a minimum degree of distinctiveness.
  • Furthermore, it is customary to prefix the word element ‘plugin’ with a relevant noun, as the examples such as “Flash Plugin” or “Social Plugin” (see  Vocabulary Uni Leipzig, http://wortschatz. uni-leipzig.de/en) make clear.
  • Even to the extent that it is apparent from the concrete spelling that the application mark is not covered lexically, this does not establish sufficient distinctiveness.

ColorPlugin therefore lacks any distinctive character and is therefore excluded from a trade mark application.

Would you also like to protect your trademark or brand?

Our lawyers are experienced in trademark and patent law, national and international law.


 

Sources:

BPatG 30 W (pat) 34/18 (in German)

Picture:

geralt / pixabay.com / CCO License

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconInternational Intellectual Property,  Trademark Law Tag iconBPatG,  Bundespatentgericht,  ColorPlugin,  distinctiveness,  MarkenG,  Software

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.