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

Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

  • 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. Karl-Hermann Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Dr. Christoph Hölscher
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

AC MILAN: No protection for stationery

12. November 2021

The trade mark MILAN of the German stationery manufacturer has prevailed against the famous football club AC MILAN: AC MILAN cannot claim protection for stationery because of likelihood of confusion with the MILAN mark, European Court (CFI) ruled.

AC MILAN: Wort- und Bildmarke
IR mark in dispute of AC MILAN

AC MILAN is one of the absolute top football clubs in Europe. And of course, AC MILAN claims protection for its eponymous trademark in many areas, in short, for everything that makes sense in terms of merchandising. In this context, in February 2017, AC MILAN filed an application for international registration with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) for the word and figurative mark AC MILAN, designating the European Union and claiming Nice Class 16 stationery.

This IR trade mark was also granted and published. Thereupon, the German stationery manufacturer InterES Handels- und Dienstleistungs Gesellschaft mbH & Co. KG filed an opposition against this trade mark on the grounds of likelihood of confusion with the German word mark MILAN, which has been protected as a trade mark for stationery since 1984. As it turned out, this was successful, as both the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal, which was subsequently seised, upheld the opposition. AC MILAN brought an action against this before the European Court of First Instance (CFI).

Action by AC MILAN before the CFI

The dispute before the CFI was mainly about the proof of use of the earlier German trade mark MILAN. The Board of Appeal had not only taken into account invoices, catalogues, etc. from the relevant five-year period for its decision, but also additional evidence that did not originate from the relevant period. In addition, the applicant AC MILAN complained that the place of use of the earlier mark had not been sufficiently proven, all the more so because the invoices submitted as proof were not addressed to end consumers, but to retailers – an important aspect for this legal dispute, as a national German mark is opposed to AC MILAN’s IR mark.

Finally, AC MILAN argued that there was no likelihood of confusion at all, because the German trade mark MILAN had been used on the German market both as a word mark, but also in combination with an additional figurative element, namely the head of a bird of prey.

However, the CFI rejected the objections.

Use of the MILAN trade mark in the 5-year period

Even catalogues, invoices and sales figures that do not originate from the relevant 5-year period or are undated and are therefore not relevant in themselves as evidence of genuine use of the earlier mark in the relevant period must nevertheless be taken into account, according to the CFI. The CFI emphasised that continuity of use is one of the relevant indicia and that the commercial life of a product generally extends over a certain period of time. Therefore, documents outside the relevant period were not irrelevant, but had to be considered and assessed together with the other evidence.

The existence of brochures and catalogues written in German as well as price lists stated in euros suggested distribution throughout Germany, the CFI continued, thus also rejecting the accusation that the place of use had not been proven. Above all, the imprint in one of the intervener’s catalogues had also clearly given the name and address in Germany. In doing so, the court emphasised the established case law according to which the actual use of the trade mark refers to the market on which the proprietor of the trade mark is active and on which he hopes to exploit his trade mark – and not in a use directed at end consumers.

The CFI also rejected AC MILAN’s objection with regard to the established likelihood of confusion. The fact that the German stationery manufacturer also proved the use of its MILAN mark with evidence containing an additional figurative element of a raven’s head did not change the existing likelihood of confusion, the CFI ruled.

AC Milan and MILAN: likelihood of confusion

In the case of the AC MILAN mark, the relevant consumers for the purposes of establishing likelihood of confusion would pay attention in particular to the word element, especially as these are reproduced in capital letters and in a stylised font. The word element “Milan”, in turn, will be perceived either as a reference to the Italian city of Milan, or to the male first name Milan, or to a species of bird of prey, the European Court explained. The word element “ac milan” nevertheless constitutes the dominant element of the mark applied for, despite the low distinctiveness of the element “Milan”, and there is thereby a likelihood of confusion with the mark MILAN for the stationery goods claimed.

AC MILAN argued in vain that the Board of Appeal had not taken into account the high profile of the sign AC MILAN and the reputation of the football club AC Milan when assessing the likelihood of confusion. The CFI rejected this as well. On the contrary, it was even the case that, according to the case-law, only the reputation of the earlier mark, and not that of the mark applied for, is to be taken into account when assessing whether the similarity gives rise to a likelihood of confusion (ECJ 2009, Aceites del Sur-Coosur v Koipe, C-498/07 P).

The action brought by AC MILAN was therefore dismissed in its entirety. The famous football club cannot claim protection for stationery due to likelihood of confusion with the earlier German trade mark MILAN.

Do you also want to protect or defend a trademark?

Our lawyers have many years of expertise in trade mark law as well as in the entire field of intellectual property and are entitled to represent you before any court – in Germany and also internationally.

 

Sources (including the picture):

Judgement of CFI, EU:T:2021:773

  • share  8 
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconIR mark,  word and figurative mark,  earlier national mark,  relevant market,  stationery,  proof of use of mark,  genuine use of mark,  altered mark,  use of mark,  AC MILAN,  likelihood of confusion,  MILAN,  Merchandising

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Trademark Law

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

  • 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
  • EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible 24. 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:

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

10. February 2022
CFI: Shoes MADE IN ITALY

CFI: Shoes MADE IN ITALY

Contact us or request a call back

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

Footer

Contact

Torhaus Westhafen
Speicherstrasse 59
D – 60327 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

© Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB

Contact Form

 

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

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

Kontaktformular

 

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

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