• 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: IR trademark in German opposition proceedings

13. August 2021

An IR trademark can be objected to as a relative ground for refusal in opposition proceedings in Germany. However, it makes a difference whether the IR trademark extends to Germany or to the EU.

IR Marke

In 1989, in the Madrid Agreement, essential regulations and laws were adopted for the international registration of trademarks, so-called IR trademarks. Above all, a uniform procedure enables a relatively uncomplicated application and registration of an IR trademark; for example, only one application is necessary at only one trade mark office, namely the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The registration procedure applies to a large number of countries, in the moment the Madrid Union at WIPO currently has 108 members, covering 124 countries, for example Brazil became member state in 2019.

It is true that an IR trademark is not a “world trade mark”, but strictly speaking an IP right within the association. De facto, however, after a successful application for an IR trademark, mine has the same protection rights as the national trademark in the countries to which the IR trademark extends.

Difference: IR trade mark in Germany or the EU

Accordingly, an IR trade mark can also be used in opposition proceedings against a national trade mark. Likewise, an IR trademark can also be filed against an EU trademark in opposition proceedings. However, it makes a difference in German trade mark law whether the IR trademark extends to Germany or to the EU.

The Federal Supreme Court (BGH) recently drew attention to this difference for an IR trademark in opposition proceedings in its decision “Olympia (‘Retroolympics’)”. This is because, according to Article 4(1)(a) of the Protocol to the Madrid Agreement and Article 189(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the EU trademark (formerly Article 151(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009), an international registration as an IR trademark designating the European Union has the same effect as the registration of a trademark as an EU trademark.

Therefore, the BGH explained, the application of the German Trade Mark Act (MarkenG) does not follow from § 119(1) MarkenG. This is a paragraph referring to international registrations of trade marks under the Protocol to the Madrid Agreement, the protection of which extends to the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany.

However, if the IR trademark extends to the EU, it corresponds to an EU trademark. Therefore, the application of the Trade Mark Act results rather from § 125b No. 1 MarkenG, the BGH clarified. According to this § 125b MarkenG, EU trademarks applied for or registered with earlier seniority are treated in the same way as trademarks applied for or registered under the Trade Mark Law with earlier seniority for the application of § 9 MarkenG. However, there is a difference: the reputation in the national territory pursuant to § 9 (1) No. 3 Trade Mark Law is replaced by the reputation in the Union pursuant to Art. 9 (2) c EU Trade Mark Regulation.

Moreover, EU trade marks may be objected to as relative grounds for refusal in opposition proceedings under § 42 (2) no. 1 MarkenG.

In practice

This clarification by the Federal Supreme Court is particularly important with regard to the proof of the reputation of an earlier trade mark, as well as with regard to the proof of genuine use of a trade mark. Because this proof also presents challenges to well-known brand manufacturers time and again, if only because brands also change a little in the spirit of the times. Please read the following of our blog posts:

  • Adidas loses protection for 3-Stripes: inverse colour representation of the mark
  • Opposition by the owner of an earlier mark – and prove of reputation
  • Genuine use of the mark – with slightly different representation of the mark

Therefore, clarity is important: Against an IR mark that extends across the EU, reputation in the Union must be proven. And the question of whether there is a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of § 9 (1) No. 2 MarkenG must be comprehensively assessed – just as with § 14 (2) No. 2 MarkenG – by taking into account all relevant circumstances of the individual case. Important in the likelihood of confusion is also the distinctiveness through intensive use, which of course also refers to the EU or only Germany, depending on the scope of protection of the IR trademark.

This is because in opposition proceedings against an IR trademark that extends to Germany, only the national reputation is relevant.

Do you 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. Our team also has country and language knowledge as well as legal expertise in China.
Please contact us if you are interested.


 

Sources:

BGH, I ZB 6/20

Bild:

OpenClipart-Vectors | pixabay | CCO License

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconIR trade mark,  IR trade mark ground for refusal,  IR trade mark in opposition proceedings,  IR trade mark likelihood of confusion

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.