• 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

This comes full circle: ® also for a registered word and figurative mark?

23. January 2018

Whoever signals trademark protection for a word sign with the ® for “Registered”, even though the word sign is registered as a word and figurative mark, can commit a confusion. It is an international sign concerning trademark protection, but German and American courts interpret it differently.

Company names or product names are often supplemented with the symbols ® (Registered). This symbol, the R in a circle, was originally created in the USA. There it indicates that the trademark is officially registered in the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office. Furthermore, in the USA, the trademark owner can only claim damages in case of a possible trademark infringement if the infringer has demonstrably received knowledge of the earlier trademark registration. This is different in Germany. Here, the trademark owner can claim damages even if the infringer did not know that he acted against a registered trademark. It is permissible under German trademark law, but it is not necessary for a registered trademark to be marked with the suffix ®. 

Likelihood of confusion by claiming trademark protection ®?

SatellitA few months ago, the German Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Frankfurt had to rule in such a case (AZ 2-3 O 218/17). The respondent has a word and figurative mark with the word elements “Marke1 Digital Technology”, registered for “Installation accessories for satellite technology”. The lettering is in two colours and a half moon is attached to the expression “Marke1”, which means “Brand1”. A representation of a satellite connection box, which was offered on the online platform Amazon under the name “Marke1®”, was negotiated in court. The applicant objected to this and claimed injunction against the defendant. The plaintiff accused the respondent of causing confusion by claiming trademark protection ® for the component part of a registered trademark.

If a sign is accompanied by the suffix ®, the German court held that the user expect that this sign is registered as a trade mark or that it has been granted a licence by the proprietor of the trade mark. Something else could apply if an existing trademark is modified only slightly. If the deviations remain within the framework that does not alter the trademark’s distinctive character (Sec. 26 (3) German Trademark Act), the use of the ® symbol is also harmless, according to the OLG.

The distinctive character of the brand is decisive

The key question is therefore whether the distinctive character of the registered trademark is not substantially altered by a slight modification. As this leaves room for interpretation, the court clarified:

  • the omission of figurative elements is possible if the independently identifying word element is retained
  • the omission of descriptive word elements is also possible

In the present case, the court ruled in this sense. According to the court, the term “Marke1” is the only distinctive element of the brand. The inconspicuous pictorial component in the shape of the crescent is to be neglected as well as the two-color scheme. The OLG argued that further elements of the word and figurative mark were purely descriptive in character and that the figurative elements were so inconspicuous that they could be neglected.

Misleading is not excluded

The German court therefore ruled against the plaintiff and confirmed the legal use of the “Marke1®”. Nevertheless, the court pointed out that deception could not be excluded with absolute certainty. Not least of all because the general public may not expect a representation of a correct word and figurative mark in the detailed text of a product description – as it was given by the respondent – if it finds the complete designation in a more prominent place of the offer in eye-catching manner.

Incidentally, misleading is also possible if trademark protection does not actually exist in Germany, but in another country. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has also ruled on this matter: already in its ruling of 13.12.1990 “Pall / Dahlhausen” (C-238/89), the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that the distribution of goods with the suffix ® may not be prohibited in Germany if a corresponding trademark is not registered in Germany, but in an EU member state as a protected trademark.

 

Are you interested in brand or trade mark protection?

Incorrect use of ® can quickly lead to warnings. Please take your chance and contact us. Our lawyers are experienced in trademark and patent law, national and international law.

CAT-call_en

 

Sources:

OLG Frankfurt Urteil 2-3 O 218/17

pictures:

Alexas_Fotos /pixabay.com / CCO License  || OpenIcons /pixabay.com / CCO License  

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconbrand

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.