• 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 – who thinks of London?

6. December 2017

Although the famous Burlington Arcade for luxury products in central London has been known for over 100 years, it was not able to assert itself before the CJEU against the registration of various word and figurative trademarks of Burlington Fashion GmbH. The earlier mark Burlington Arcade is registered only for Nice Classes 35, 36 and 41.

Burlington Arcade

The German intervener Burlington Fashion GmbH, also well known in Germany as the sock manufacturer FALKE KGaA, filed an application for registration of the word mark Burlington as well as word and figurative marks containing the word element Burlington in Nice Classes 3, 14, 18 and 24, whereas the applicant Tulliallan Burlington Ltd, owner of Burlington Arcade in London, filed a notice of opposition and relied on its own earlier word and figurative mark Burlington Arcade. It also claimed that the unfair use of its famous own trade mark was synonymous with luxury products. The earlier mark Burlington Arcade is registered for Nice Classes 35, 36 and 41.

In 2013, the Opposition Division upheld the opposition, but by decision of 11 January 2016 (‘the contested decision’), the EUIPO Board of Appeal annulled it. The goods and decisions of the goods and services in question are different and, moreover, Tulliallan Burlington Ltd. has not proved that the conditions necessary to prove misrepresentation and damage in the present case are met. The applicant appealed against that decision before the European Court (CFI).

Burlington – a name as famous as it is contested

The Burlington brand is a famous brand name in both Germany and UK. In London, the historic shopping arcade Burlington Arcade is a famous name as a very famous shopping arcade with luxury boutiques, as are the surrounding Burlington Gardens and Burlington House. In Germany, on the other hand, socks have been produced under the brand name Burlington since the 70s in a pattern based on the style of the Scottish clans. After changing licenses to the name rights, which were initially located in the USA, the German company Falke has held trademark rights to the Burlington brand for years. The intervener in this case, Burlington Fashion GmbH, operates at the same address as FALKE KGaA.

In its judgments today, the CJEU confirmed the repute of the earlier marks in Nice Classes 36, 41 and – unlike the Board of Appeal – also for the services in Class 35. Nevertheless, the Court found that there was no connection between the marks. Nor has the applicant proved that the use without due cause of the mark applied for takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier marks.

Although the applicant refers to the “almost unique” character of its earlier marks and to their “high and exclusive” repute, it has not submitted any evidence that the use of the mark applied for would undermine the attractiveness of its earlier marks, the CFI held.

The absence of a precise indication of the goods which may be sold in the various shops which include a shopping arcade such as Burlington Arcade precludes any link between those shops and the goods covered by the mark applied for. The Court added that the fact that a trade mark including the term “Burlington” was used for goods similar to those offered in the applicant’s London Passage was not in itself such as to affect the economic attractiveness of that place for the average consumer and dismissed the action.

Sources:

Judgement of CJEU vom 6. december 2017:  EU:T:2017:872, EU:T:2017:871 , EU:T:2017:870

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconBurlingtion Fashion,  Burlington Arcade,  Burlington brand,  CJEU,  EUIPO,  Falke,  judgement

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.