• 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

Burlington Arcade vs. Burlington: Luxury passageway wins

5. March 2020

Plaintiff Tulliallan, owner of the famous luxury arcade Burlington Arcade in London, won yesterday before the ECJ against Burlington Fashion GmbH, known for its Burlington socks. The CFI had referred to the Praktiker judgement of 2005, but the plaintiff’s trademarks had been registered previously.

angefochtene EU Marken Burlington

The judgement of the ECJ (C:2020:151) on the trademark dispute about the Burlington brand marks the end of a longstanding dispute about the Burlington brand name. Plaintiff Tulliallan Burlington Ltd (UK), owner of the famous luxury arcade Burlington Arcade in London, had filed an action against the application for three separate EU figurative marks containing the word “Burlington” and the EU word mark “BURLINGTON” filed by the German Burlington Fashion GmbH (“BF”), invoking its own luxury arcade and the trademark Burlington Arcade, which has been protected since 2003.

Burlington Arcade
Marke Burlington Arcade der Klägerin

The marks in question were registered for different Nice classes, the earlier word and figurative mark Burlington Arcade by Tulliallan for Nice classes 35, 36 and 41, while the marks in dispute, Burlington, were registered for Nice classes 3, 14, 18 and 24. However, the case-law has consistently held that a likelihood of confusion is also possible between marks in different Nice classes.

Moreover, both parties are companies that have been using the brand name Burlington for decades: In Germany, Scottish patterned socks have been produced under this brand name since the 1970s and up to the present day, while in the UK, on the other hand, the famous Burlington Arcade luxury arcade in the centre of London is a byword for the luxury products sold there.

The applicant Tulliallan nevertheless regarded its own earlier mark as a term with a particularly distinctive character and claimed, in addition to the likelihood of confusion, that its own reputation was being unfairly exploited (pursuant to Article 8(4) of EU Regulation No 207/2009).

Since 2013, this case has been heard before different instances with conflicting judgments, but in June 2019 the Advocate General strengthened the Burlington Arcade trademark in his opinion.

Brand dispute Burlington Arcade vs. Burlington since 2013

In particular, applicant Tulliallan claimed before the ECJ that in its judgments of 6 December 2017 the ECJ referred to a judgment of 2005, Praktiker Bau- und Heimwerkermärkte (C 418/02, EU:C:2005:425) – although its own earlier marks had all been registered before that judgment, namely in 2003.

This was relevant because the CFI concluded from the Praktiker judgment that the term “retail services” in Nice class 35 also included shopping arcades and shopping centres. However, since Tulliallan’s earlier marks do not contain any precise indication of the goods sold in the Burlington Arcade, this precludes any link between those shops and the goods covered by the contested mark of BF, the CFI had ruled. BF’s Burlington socks are purchased by average consumers, whereas the applicant’s goods were generally defined as ‘luxury goods’.

It is equally important that since the Praktiker judgement of 2005, the goods offered for sale must be precisely indicated in the case of retail services.

Praktiker judgment of 2005 does not apply to earlier marks

Yesterday, the highest European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled on the trademark dispute Burlington and upheld the plaintiff Tulliallan. The ECJ should not have referred to the 2005 judgment because Tulliallan’s earlier marks were registered by Tulliallan before the date of the Praktiker judgment, the ECJ ruled.

The owner of such an earlier mark must be able to exercise his right to oppose a later trademark application without the opposition failing merely because of the lack of precise information on the goods, the court explained. Moreover, it is also possible, by means of a request for proof of genuine use of the earlier mark (within the meaning of Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009), to identify the exact goods covered by the services for which the earlier mark has been used and to take into account only those goods when examining the opposition, the ECJ added.

The judgment of the ECJ in favour of the applicant Tulliallan Burlington is a complete defeat of the intervener Burlington Fashion. This trade mark dispute was carried out in several proceedings and through several instances. The decisions and rulings made there were annulled in their entirety by the ECJ’s judgment. In detail, all Burlington judgments of the CFI of 6 December 2017 and also the decision of the Board of Appeal of 11 January 2016 have been set aside.

Would you also like to protect or defend your trademark?

Our lawyers are experienced in trademark and patent law, national and international law.

 

Source for text and image:

Judgement of ECJ  ‘Burlington’, EU:C:2020:151

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconapplication of a recent judgment,  Burlington,  Burlington Arcade,  Burlington socks,  CFI,  ECJ,  fashion,  likelihood of confusion,  London,  luxury arcades,  luxury goods,  Nice Class 35,  Praktiker judgment,  retail services,  shopping,  shopping arcades,  shopping centres,  Trade Mark Dispute

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

© MD LEGAL Patentanwalt, European Patent Attorney 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.