• 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
      • Dr. Christoph Hölscher
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

German Federal Patent Court: Domain “Headline24” for online services not distinctive

22. June 2018

More and more people want to protect their Internet domain as a trademark. Here, too, the crucial question in trademark law must be answered: Does the domain name have distinctive character? In the case of “Headline24” the German Federal Patent Court decided that the domain for online services is descriptive:

GPTO: Trademark describes “available headline”

In June 2014, the trademark “Headline24” was registered by the owner at the German Patent and Trademark Office (GPTO) for the following services:

  • Class 35: Advertising; Internet services (arranging and leasing of advertising time and advertising space on the Internet)
  • Class 38: Services of an Internet service provider (in relation to news and advertising)
  • Class 41: Providing electronic, non-downloadable publications online (in relation to news and advertising)
  • Class 42: Design and development of computer hardware and computer software

Headline24However, with the exception of Class 42 services and part of Class 35 services, the registration was rejected by the GPTO in November 2015 for lack of distinctiveness.

In its reasoning, the GPTO  stated that the trade mark consists of a simple, customary graphic. In addition, the English term “headline” is clearly to be understood as a highlighted heading or as a headline of a newspaper or advertisement. The addition of the number “24”, which is used very common in the advertising industry, furthermore points to an offer that is available around the clock.

Therefore, the “Headline24” mark is understood by domestic consumers in that way, that the offered services have headlines, which are available around the clock, as object. Thus, the mark is descriptive for services and as a consequence has no distinctive character.

Trademark applicant misses “generous scale”

The applicant filed an appeal against the decision, as she missed the “generous scale” required by case law in the GPTO’s assessment of the trademark. The applicant argued that even if you interpret the trademark “Headline24” as a 24-hour offer of headlines, this would not describe the services for which the GPTO rejected the registration. Users of Internet platforms and businesses would not see a descriptive reference to “headlines” in the services “advertising on the Internet” and “maintaining data related to news and advertising on the Internet”. This would also apply to the purely technical services of class 38.

Headline Symbolfoto

In addition, the trademark applicant points out that consumers would recognize the underlying company based on the buzzword used as domain. Portals such as Check24.de, Flüge.de, Ab-in-den-urlaub.de oder Günstiger.de serve as examples.

Federal Patent Court: Trademark has no origin-indicating function

However, the German Federal Patent Court does not share the view of the trademark applicant. Because besides the purely technical component, the relevant services also include the contentual provision and transmission of data. And according to the Federal Patent Court, the relevant public would not distinguish between these two components because of the thematic reference in the concerned services. So the term “Headline24” continues to be descriptive and has no origin-indicating function for traffic.

Also the graphic design of the mark does not constitute a registrability on its own or in combination with the word elements, since it’s uses a customary stylistic device which is common in the advertising industry.

The reference made by the mark applicant to Internet portals with similarly formed domain names had no impact on the decision.

 

Are you interested in brand or trade mark protection?

Please take your chance and contact us. Our lawyers are experienced in trademark and patent law, national and international law.

 

 

Sources:

Text: Judgemet of the Germand Federal Patent Court from the 29th November 2017  29 W (pat) 507/16

Image:

USA-Reiseblogger / pixabay.com / CC0 License

Illustration of the trademark from  Judgemet of the Germand Federal Patent Court from the 29th November 2017

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag icondomain,  internet domain,  BPatG,  German Federal Patent Court,  Trademark,  Trademark law,  29 W (pat) 507/16,  headline24

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

  • 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
  • EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible 24. 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:

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

10. February 2022
CFI: Shoes MADE IN ITALY

CFI: Shoes MADE IN ITALY

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Torhaus Westhafen
Speicherstrasse 59
D – 60327 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

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

Contact Form

 

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

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

Kontaktformular

 

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

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