• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

  • 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. Karl-Hermann Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Clara Elinor Grünewald
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Case law: Homogeneous group of goods and services

28. July 2020

A homogeneous group of goods and/or services can be assessed in summary form in the statement of reasons for decisions on absolute grounds for refusal. However, they may not be treated equally or not assessed at all without further justification, the German Federal Patent Court ruled.

Eisblock

Trade mark application for the word EISBLOCK

The case centres on the trade mark application for the word EISBLOCK (in engl: ICE BLOCK). The word mark EISBLOCK had been applied for at the German Patent and Trade Mark Office (DPMA) for a variety of goods and services, inter alia in Nice classes 25 (headgear, clothing) and 41 (events), but also in Nice classes 33 (alcoholic beverages) and 43 (food and beverages).

The DPMA refused that trade mark application on the ground of lack of distinctiveness. The goods claimed in Class 25 were merchandising products to which the trade mark applied for was only applied as an imprint. In addition, the applicant claims that the artistic creation of sculptures from blocks of ice and the preparation of food and drink using blocks of ice are well known.

The trade mark applicant lodged an appeal against that decision and requested that it be set aside. It argued that words contained in the Duden dictionary were distinctive as long as, like the mark applied for, they did not make a direct connection with the goods and services claimed.

BPatG: insufficient differentiation of goods and services

However, the Bundespatentgericht (BPatG), in its judgment in that case (26 W (pat) 568/19, EISBLOCK), did not even consider the distinctive character of the word sign EISBLOCK in relation to the goods and services claimed. The BPatG explained that the DPMA had in principle only insufficiently differentiated between the individual goods and services in its reasoning for refusing registration of the mark. Thus, the trade mark office had failed to give reasons for the refusal decision in the present case (see § 61 (1), German Trade Mark Law).

For in examining the absolute grounds for refusal of protection under § 8 (2) MarkenG, all goods and/or services claimed must in principle be assessed, the court emphasized and in this context also referred to the judgments BGH 2009 – DeutschlandCard and ECJ 2007 – MT&C/BMB. According to general case law, a global justification is sufficient if the same considerations concern a category or group of the goods and/or services applied for, i.e. if a homogeneous group can be identified.

European Court: Homogeneous group of goods and services

However, it is precisely such a grouping as a homogeneous group that is repeatedly the subject of trademark law proceedings, especially recently before the European Court. The fact that “toiletries” also form a homogeneous group with “personal care products” was decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) at the beginning of this year in the case of a 3D trademark flower. Also in January 2020, the CJEU ruled that the claimed services in Nice class 42 for complex software were different, but nevertheless largely inseparable; IT creation goes hand in hand with consulting, the court ruled. In this context, the CJEU’s judgment on the distinctiveness of an advertising message of May 2020 is also noteworthy. Since an advertising message conveys a very broadly defined promotional message in relation to a wide range of goods and services, all these goods and services can be combined into a single sufficiently homogeneous group, the CJEU stated.

Homegene Gruppe? Eisblock

Breach of the duty to state reasons

The BPatG stressed that the same reasoning relevant for different goods and/or services does not have to be repeated for each individual item of the list of goods/services, but that groups of goods and/or services can be assessed in summary. In the EISBLOCK case, however, the DPMA had only stated in general terms that terms listed in dictionaries and generally understandable indications such as the application sign lacked the necessary distinctiveness. In the opinion of the BPatG, this was insufficient.

The court explained that the duty to state reasons is infringed if different goods and/or services are treated equally without further justification or are not assessed at all.

In the present case, the DPMA had not even defined the literal meaning of the sign applied for, the court criticised. The Court also found that there was an almost complete lack of a statement of reasons regarding the meaning of the sign in relation to the numerous goods and services in the list of goods and services for which registration is sought. Furthermore, in the service claimed in Class 43, the DPMA simply claimed that the preparation of food and drink was carried out with the aid of blocks of ice. However, this was neither explained nor proved.

Therefore, the decision of the DPMA had to be reversed under § 70 (3) German Trade Mark Law, the BPatG ruled, and the case was referred back to the DPMA for re-examination of the trade mark application.

Do you also want to protect or defend your trademark or brand name?

Our attorneys have many years of expertise in trademark law as well as in the entire field of intellectual property and are entitled to represent you in any court – in Germany and internationally.
Please contact us if you are interested.


 

Sources: 

Judgement of BPATG EISBLOCK, 26 W (pat) 568/19

Images:

Myriams-Fotos | pixabay.com | CCO License  |  PhotoMIX-Company | pixabay.com | CCO License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet  
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconBPatG,  appeal,  DPMA,  Trademark law,  statement of grounds,  violation of the duty to state reasons,  homogeneous group,  goods and/or services,  refusal to register,  EISBLOCK

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
This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Recent Posts

  • Action against a patent already expired 26. February 2021
  • Design protection in China: Amendment 2021 25. February 2021
  • EPO practice of national patent offices – more uniform 18. February 2021
  • BGH: Black Forest ham – not only packaged in the Black Forest 16. February 2021

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:

16. February 2021
BGH: Black Forest ham – not only packaged in the Black Forest

BGH: Black Forest ham – not only packaged in the Black Forest

16. February 2021
UK trademark after Brexit: earlier UK trademark in opposition

UK trademark after Brexit: earlier UK trademark in opposition

11. February 2021
EU figurative marks: Panthé figurative mark – a panther mark?

EU figurative marks: Panthé figurative mark – a panther mark?

9. February 2021
BGH ruling: Classe E versus German E-Klasse

BGH ruling: Classe E versus German E-Klasse

4. February 2021
Protecting domain names as trademarks

Protecting domain names as trademarks

1. February 2021
UK ruling: Parallel Trademarks in Amazon Sales

UK ruling: Parallel Trademarks in Amazon Sales

Footer

Contact

Franklinstr. 61-63
D-60486 Frankfurt am Main
Germany

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Customer Reviews

Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB Patentrecht, Markenrecht, Eigentum hat 4,78 von 5 Sternen 23 Bewertungen auf ProvenExpert.com

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
  • Info secure emails
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

© Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form