• 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

OLG Düsseldorf: No compensation for damages of gratuitous licensing

9. April 2021

The German Düsseldorf OLG has made a ruling on the use of the ÖKO-TEST label in violation of the trademark, with effect on many IP rights: No compensation for damages in the case of gratuitous licensing, not even in the case of its use in violation of the trademark. The appeal is now pending before the BGH.

unentgeltliche Lizensierung

The case concerning the use of the ÖKO-TEST label in violation of the trademark has been going through the German courts for years and was even judged by the highest European court in 2019. The question before the ECJ was whether retailers may use the ÖKO-Test label exclusively to advertise the specific products tested.

The ECJ ruled (EU:C:2019:317) in a weighing manner: the ÖKO-TEST brands do enjoy esteem, especially in Germany. However, it was for the referring court to determine whether the defendant could take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of these marks.

The defendant in this case is a manufacturer of toothpastes and also used the ÖKO-TEST label for different packaging of the product than it had agreed to under a license agreement with ÖKO-TEST. ÖKO-TEST filed a lawsuit against this unlicensed advertising with the ÖKO-TEST label.

This case is complicated by ÖKO-TEST’s practice of allowing manufacturers of tested products to advertise with the ÖKO-TEST label. The prerequisite for this is the conclusion of a free license agreement that provides details on the right of use.

OLG Düsseldorf: Decision of November 19, 2020

Most recently, this case was again decided before the OLG Düsseldorf, which ruled on it on November 19, 2020 (I-20 U 152/16, see also 2a O 197/15). The OLG thus made a decision that can still reach far beyond the ÖKO-TEST label.

For no damages can be claimed in the case of gratuitous licensing, ruled the OLG Düsseldorf, not even in the case of an infringement of his rights. In the case of an infringement of his rights without a concrete loss of assets, the trademark owner is entitled to injunctive relief, but not to damages.

In principle, there are three ways of calculating damages for infringements of IP rights, the OLG explained:

  • Concrete damage
  • License analogy
  • Surrender of the infringer’s profit

Necessary for any calculation of damages, however, is a loss; a loss of assets on the part of the infringed party is therefore a prerequisite for damages.

Injunctive relief was granted. The OLG Düsseldorf conceded that the ÖKO-TEST label is a well-known trademark within the meaning of Art. 9 (2) c) of the EU Trademark Regulation. Therefore, the rights of ÖKO-TEST may be infringed by the fact that the label was used as a test seal and quasi proof of quality and not as a classic trademark, the OLG ruled.

However, this does not give rise to a claim for damages, the court added, as there is no concrete loss of assets.

Why is this ruling so relevant?

There is the possibility of licensing in all areas of IP protection. Often, for certain strategic reasons, gratuitous licensing is granted subject to conditions of use. This was also the case in the present case.

However, the OLG Düsseldorf concludes from this that no damage can have occurred, since the commercial exploitation was waived by the free licensing.

OLG excludes any calculation of potential damages

Therefore, the OLG also excludes any calculation of potential damages; neither a claim for information nor a calculation of the infringer’s profit is admissible, the OLG ruled. The same applies to the license analogy. If the infringed party waives any commercial use of its exclusive right, the objective value of the use can only be set at “zero”, the OLG Düsseldorf explained.

Gratuitous licensing: Appeal pending before the BGH

Due to the relevance for any free licensing of IP rights, an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) is expressly permitted. The case is now pending there under case number I ZR 201/20. The ruling of the Federal Court of Justice on this explosive case is eagerly awaited.

Is the licensing of IP rights an issue for you?

Our attorneys have many years of expertise in the entire field of intellectual property and are authorized to represent you before any court – in Germany and internationally.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you are interested.

 

Sources:

Judgement of OLG Düsseldorf 2a O 197/15

Image:

Peggychoucair | pixabay | CCO License

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconLicenses,  Trademark Law Tag icon2a O 197/15,  damages,  damages in the case of gratuitous licensing,  gratuitous licensing,  I ZR 201/20,  I-20 U 152/16,  injunction,  label,  license analogy,  Licensing,  ÖKO-TEST,  OLG Düsseldorf

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Licenses

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

© Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte 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.