• 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

BGH and Ritter Sport: Product shape with functional features

25. August 2020

Ritter sport keeps its trademark right at square commodity form of the well-known chocolate, judged the BGH some weeks ago. In the now public full judgement the BGH states this as an important leading principle regarding a product shape with functional characteristics.

Warenform Ritter Sport Quadrat

The German BGH had announced its decision in a press release on July 23, 2020 – we reported. For years, the square shape of Ritter Sport chocolate, which has been protected as a molded trademark since 1995, has been contested by competitor Milka.

The Federal Supreme Court did indeed take into account Ritter Sport’s marketing strategy, with which the company had used the square shape of the packaging as an almost proverbial advertising slogan “Quadratisch. Practical. Good”. However, the shape of a product or packaging is only excluded from trademark protection under § 3 (2) No. 3 MarkenG if it gives the product a significant value – and this is not the case here, the BGH ruled. Ritter Sport retains its trademark right to the square shape of the well-known chocolate.

Full judgement now published

However, the now published full judgement (I ZB 42/19 (in German)) is also important, because in it the BGH formulated an important guiding principle decision regarding a commodity form and product shape with functional characteristics.

The obstacle to protection of § 3 para. 2 No. 3 German MarkenG (engl: trademark law) exists if it is clear from objective and reliable aspects that the decision of the consumer to buy the product in question is determined to a large extent by the fact that the shape of the product gives the product a significant value, the BGH clarified in its full judgement. However, it is not relevant whether the shape of the product has a special economic value for the trademark owner because it has become established in the trade as an indication of the origin of the product.

Public perception not a decisive factor

The BGH even explicitly emphasizes that the perception of the public is not a decisive factor for the assessment whether there is a barrier to protection according to § 3 para. 2 No. 3 MarkenG. According to the leading principle decision of the BGH, the following evaluation criteria are rather decisive:

  • the nature of the category of goods in question,
  • the artistic value of the form in question,
  • their otherness compared to other forms generally used in the respective market,
  • a significant price difference compared to similar products
  • and also the elaboration of a marketing strategy that mainly emphasizes the aesthetic qualities of the product in question.

However, the BGH ruled that Ritter Sport’s marketing strategy, which is undoubtedly based on the shape of the goods, does not in the present case lead to the fact that this shape of goods confers a substantial value on the goods. The square shape of the packaging has no particular artistic value and does not lead to significant price differences compared to similar products.

Also applies to fabric shape with functional features

Equally important is the addition of the Federal Supreme Court’s ruling that the obstacle to protection under § 3 (2) No. 3 MarkenG does not only apply to the shape of goods which have a purely artistic or decorative value, but also to a shape of goods with functional characteristics.

The same applies to a shape of goods which, in addition to an important aesthetic element, also has essential functional characteristics, the BGH decided as part of its leading decision.

Extension by subsequent grounds for cancellation

Finally this case also touched a fundamental question in the trademark cancellation procedure, also for this the BGH formulated a guiding principle decision. It concerned the clarification whether an extension by additional, but subsequent grounds for cancellation would be included in the current proceedings.

According to § 54 (2) MarkenG, it does not follow from § 54 (2) MarkenG that an extension of the subject matter of the dispute by additional grounds for cancellation is inadmissible in trademark cancellation proceedings, the BGH ruled.

De facto this means that if cancellation proceedings are already pending and further grounds for cancellation are asserted, these will become the subject matter of the current proceedings without initiating new cancellation proceedings. Therefore, the BGH explained that the subsequent grounds for cancellation do not have to be objected to within two months in order to prevent a cancellation.

Do you want to protect or defend your trademark?

Our lawyers will be happy to advise you. Please contact us if you are interested – we look forward to your call!


 

Sources:

Judgement of BGH ‘Ritter Sport’, I ZB 42/19 (in German)

Image:

Hans | pixabay | CCO License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconBGH,  cancellation procedure,  commodity form,  commodity form with functional characteristic,  commodity form with functional characteristics,  full judgement,  I ZB 42/19,  judgement,  knight sport,  Leitsatzentscheidung,  mark,  square,  square commodity form,  substantial functional characteristics

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.