• 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

“Bull-Fight”: Trademark Dispute between Osborne and Paella del Arte

9. May 2017

Grupo Osborne, the Company behind the famous Osborne Sherrys and Brandys with the Bull, is also known for actively protecting their trademark(s). So as it had to happen Osborne found out that there has been a (EU) Trademark Application that contains a bull too. But besides the bull there is also a sunset, the words “PAELLA DEL ARTE” and moreover all these things are inside a pan. But is that enough to show its distinctiveness?! 

Osborne-Bull vs. Paella-Bull

GRUPO OSBORNE S.A., well-known for their alcoholic beverages, owns over 100 (Bull-) Trademarks. Reason enough to always stay alerted whenever another Company or Person tries to register a Mark that consists of a bull. About two years ago Francois Gomez applied for his European Trademark “PAELLA DEL ARTE”, seeking protection for their goods and services in Nice-Class 43 (mainly about preparing food and drink for consumption and services providing temporary accommodation).

Just a few month after their application for a Figurative Trademark, Osborne sent a notification of opposition to the applicant stating that Gomez has to withdraw the application due to

Bull_Fight_Osborne_vs_Paella_del_Arte

 

Question of questions: Is this logo similar to the logo from Osborne? “No!” says EUIPO

Osborne_Bull_crying

Both logos have a silhouette of a bull. Only the position is different: the latter seems to be a mirrored image of the “Osborne-Bull”. Though, the contested logo, the bull itself is just one of the elements besides a sunset and both elements are placed in a pan and below there are the words “paella del arte”.

Although the bull seems to be like a (very) brazen copy of the Osborne-Bull, the EUIPO supports the latter – and rejects the opposition.

EUIPO argues that the logos are dissimilar. In appeal, the Board does not take a different view on the matter: the differences prevail. Moreover, the Board of Appeal finds the bull not very distinctive: the image of the bull is abundant in the streets in Spain and is mainly seen as decoration. For many this decision is surprising but let’s be honest – a Bull has quite a weak distinctive character.

 

Similiar Cases

In the past, we wrote about similiar cases such as:

  • Jägermeister vs. Milwaukee Bucks – A trademark fight between deers
  • Adidas vs. FC Barcelona: The Power of the Three (registered) Stripes
  • European Court: Gucci loses two trademark appeals against Guess

 

Protecting your Trademark against others

Your Trademark is (obviously) more distinctive and you want to protect it against competitors? Then let’s talk business today!

Request a free-callback without any obligations:

CAT-call_en

Source:
Text: EUIPO Decision, Case R 403/2016-2

Pictures: EUIPO Database (Osborne ; Paella del Arte) | Cover: Osborne.de-Teaser – photomontage by Dr. Meyer-Dulheuer & Partners LLP

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law

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.