• 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

Oreo temporarily victorious against Oreo Twins

1. October 2018

Oreo Twins lost for the time being in the trade mark dispute against Oreo: the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO decided between the plaintiff Gullon and Interkontinental in favour of the earlier trade mark proprietor.

The trade mark dispute centred on the application by the Spanish company BISKUITS GULLÓN, S.A. for an EU trade mark in Class 30: Oreo Twins.

Oreo Twins

The American Intercontinental Great Brands filed a notice of opposition against that trade mark registration and relied on its own earlier trade marks Oreo as a 3D trade mark and the Spanish trade mark Oreo.

Board of Appeal assesses the good reputation of the earlier mark

In the present case, if account is taken of the particularly good reputation of the earlier mark, which is well known even in everyday consumption by the general public and in supermarkets for everyday consumption, the product bearing the contested mark attracts the consumer slightly, since the contested mark is reminiscent of the earlier mark with a reputation. Although the consumer does not necessarily confuse the two marks, the applicant thus uses the reputation and investment in advertising of the earlier mark to sell its product, the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO justified its decision.

Similarity between the marks in dispute?

Oreo 3 D
Earlier 3D Mark Oreo

The Board of Appeal of the EUIPO stresses the arguments put forward by the applicant Gullón, namely that there is no similarity between the disputed marks, that the name “OREO” is the one with the greatest importance in the disputed mark. Moreover, the conflicting signs show a certain visual and conceptual similarity: after all, they are black sandwich biscuits with a light-coloured filling.

Although there are differences between the word parts of the marks, that does not obscure the similarities between the signs. That leads consumers to believe that there is a link between the later mark and the earlier mark, which is well known.

The applicant also relies on earlier national decisions. However, it should be noted that the earlier decisions of the courts and offices are not binding for an assessment, the EUIPO Board of Appeal clarified. Nevertheless, the grounds of earlier decisions had been taken into account.

In this context, the following recent judgments are also worth reading:

  • RUTINI versus RUBINI – and dominance of the components of a trademark
  • No likelihood of confusion: POST, INFOPOST and ePOST vs InPost
  • Appreciation of older brands is dicisive: Puma vs. EUIPO

 

Are you interested in national or international brand or trademark protection?

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

 

 

 

Source:

Resolucion “Oreo” En el asunto R 2378/2017-2 (Spanish)

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconProduct- and Trademark piracy,  Trademark Law Tag iconBoard of Appeal of the EUIPO,  earlier mark,  good reputation,  GULLÓN,  Intercontinental Great Brands,  Oreo,  Oreo 3D,  Oreo Twins,  use of earlier mark

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Product- and Trademark piracy

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.