• 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

Online dating equal marriage? No Union word mark „MARRY ME“

18. February 2019

Due to its descriptive nature, “MARRY ME” cannot be protected as a union word mark for online dating. The European Court saw a direct connection between online dating and marriage.

„MARRY ME“ as Union word mark for Online Dating

Online dating is in vogue and so the plaintiff, Marry Me Group AG(Switzerland), filed an application in 2016 for registration of the signs ‘MARRY ME’ as union word marks(Switzerland). Among other things, the application was made for the Nice classes class 9 (“Software for virtual social networks”), 38 (“Provision of Internet chat rooms for social networks”) and 45 (“Mediation of acquaintances via social networks”).

Both the EUIPO and the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO refused to register the mark. The mark applied for directly describes the nature and intended purpose of the goods and services applied for. In addition, it is immediately clear to consumers that all the goods and services applied for in Classes 9, 38 and 45 concern dating services for the purpose of marriage.

“MARRY ME” descriptive of the goods claimed

The European Court of Justice (CJEU) endorsed the EUIPO view with its ruling. The applicant claimed that there was no sufficiently direct and concrete connection between the impression created by the mark applied for and the goods and services claimed. The European Court disagreed. Consumers immediately understand that the goods and services covered by the trade mark application make it possible to associate persons wishing to marry, according to the CJEU.

The “software for virtual social networks” claimed by the mark applied for in Nice Class 9 is software for finding partners, the court concluded. And the services in Class 38 covered by the mark applied for are all used for making contact and communicating with other persons. Consequently, they could also be used to find partners willing to marry and to discuss issues related to love and marriage, the Court argued. The services in Class 45, on the other hand, have the aim of bringing people together who have serious intentions to marry, notwithstanding the plaintiff’s assertion that those services are not marriage brokerage services, the CJEU ruled.

“MARRY ME” is therefore descriptive of the goods and services applied for and is therefore excluded from registration as a trade mark.

Would you also like to protect your trademark or brand?

Each case is considered individually and carefully by us. Use a  non-binding callback date  with us today!

Sources:

EuG Urteil Marry Me T:2019:61

Picture:

Counselling / Pixabay.de / CCO License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconInternational Intellectual Property,  Trademark Law

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.