• 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

Bad faith: sole trademark application from distribution system

12. October 2021

One of the partners applies for the sign used within a distribution system alone as a trademark: Bad faith? If one of the partners does so within the framework of a long-standing distribution relationship, even though he is not the only one entitled to do so, then there is bad faith, ruled the LG München.

Funkwellen - VertriebssystemThe focus of this judgement (LG München, 33 O 14670/19) is the trade mark dispute about the right to use the signs “GL” and “GR” as trade marks for radio remote controls. This case is particularly interesting, on the one hand, because it is a trademark dispute that has meanwhile been fought out internationally, but above all because there was initially a common company history and then a long-standing distribution relationship between the parties to the dispute.

ECJ case law on bad faith

In principle, there is well established case law on bad faith. According to ECJ case law, the question of whether the applicant knew or should have known that his mark was very similar to another is particularly relevant (see ECJ 2009, C:2009:361; 2019, C:2019:724). While an applicant does not act in bad faith merely because he knew of the use of a sign for the same goods (see ECJ 2013, C-320/12, paragraph 37), there is no “prior use right” in trademark law. However, if a trade mark is applied for with the aim of interfering with the prior user’s acquis or with the intention of blocking further use of the trade mark for the prior user, then there is bad faith. And this is all the more likely if there is an obvious competitive situation.

So how is it to be assessed if one of the partners in a long-standing distribution relationship applies for the signs used in distribution, but he was not entitled to do so alone: bad faith? Or was he entitled to these signs because the rights to the signs were not transferred in the corresponding contracts?

The facts

As one of the leading manufacturers, the plaintiff distributes radio remote controls for cranes, machines and vehicles. The defendant 2) has been the German sales company of the first defendant since 2014, and the plaintiff in turn is the former sales partner of the first defendant. The first defendant is a competitor of the plaintiff. It offers radio remote controls worldwide, inter alia in the Federal Republic of Germany, and also on its website under the signs “GL” and “GR”.

The dispute arose after a licence agreement and a distribution and installation partner agreement between the first defendant and the plaintiff were terminated by the first defendant in 2014 and the plaintiff henceforth distributed the products under the names “GL” and “GR” in Germany via the newly founded second defendant. The plaintiff, in turn, continued the product portfolio of the first defendant despite the termination of the distribution agreement.

This resulted in lawsuits and counterclaims for infringement of trademarks and trade dress. The parties accused each other of having the actual rights to the designations “GL” and “GR” and that the other side infringed them.

In the US, the court in the Western District of Oklahoma ruled against the plaintiff in April and May 2020 and ordered the plaintiff to cease and desist from using the marks in dispute; however, these decisions are not yet final. The parties are also in dispute before the European Trademark Office (EUIPO); the plaintiff filed an application for a declaration of invalidity of the first defendant’s EU trade mark after it had itself been warned by the defendant. This case has also not yet been decided; at the moment, the applicant has appealed against a negative decision of the Board of Appeal.

Before the LG Munich: sole trademark application

In turn, the Munich Regional Court is dealing with this case because the first defendant finally applied for a German word mark “GL” (no. 30 2020 010 728) and a German word mark “GR” (no. 30 2020 010 726) itself on 18 May 2020 respectively – and the plaintiff asserted a claim for injunctive relief under trade mark law against it. This was because the plaintiff had itself applied for the signs “GL” and “GR” as trade marks in August 2015 and referred to the rights based on this priority of the sole trade mark application from the distribution system.

There was identity of signs and goods, or at least a likelihood of confusion. The counterclaim marks of the first defendant were ready to be cancelled due to the earlier priority of the action marks. The plaintiff also argued that the rights to the signs “GL” and “GR” had not been transferred to H. I., Inc., but that the intellectual property rights had remained with H. D. GmbH or its legal successors, i.e. with the plaintiff. It was therefore entitled to file the sole trademark application.

But in vain: the Munich Regional Court ruled that the plaintiff could not rely on its own prior-ranking trade mark rights because these earlier rights had been acquired in bad faith and thus abusively. This was because when the plaintiff applied for the trade marks in 2015, it was well aware, as a former distribution partner of the first defendant, that the respective designations “GL” and “GR” had been used for the same goods by the first defendant and its legal predecessors for a period of 20 years. In view of the worldwide marketing of the radio remote controls with the designations “GL” and “GR” and the internal contractual regulations and the practical experience, the plaintiff could and should have been aware of the intention of the first defendant to use the designations, the Munich Regional Court added. This was to be seen as bad faith in the applicant’s sole trademark application, the Munich court ruled.

Bad faith in the applicant’s sole trademark application

Even an own intention to use does not preclude bad faith; trade marks may generally not be applied for in order to prevent a third party (see also: the Banksy trade mark cancellation). And, according to the Munich Regional Court, an intention to prevent is to be assumed if, within the scope of a long-standing distribution relationship, one of the partners applies for registration of the sign used within a distribution system as a trade mark, although in practical implementation and also due to internal contractual provisions, he is not entitled to it alone.

That was the case in the present case; contrary to the applicant’s view, it did not have sole rights to the marks in dispute. The Munich Regional Court explained that the fact that the designations “GL” and “GR” were used worldwide by all parts of the H. group of companies without any corresponding rights being derived from the plaintiff or its legal predecessors showed that the latter did not hold any rights to these designations and therefore dismissed the plaintiff’s claims.

The court instead upheld the counterclaim against the plaintiff for its bad faith in filing the sole trademark application for the plaintiff’s marks despite the known use of the signs in the distribution system.

Do you need any help in defendence of your trade mark?

Please ask us about our callback offer. We will get back to you as soon as possible!

 

Sources: 

Judgement of LG Munich, 33 O 14670/19

Image:

geralt | pixabay | CCO License

 

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconaction,  bad faith in distribution relationship,  blocking effect,  counterclaim,  distribution,  distribution agreement,  distribution partner,  distribution system,  ECJ,  injunction,  intention to obstruct,  intention to use,  LG München,  licence agreement,  trade mark application in bad faith

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

  • 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.