• 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

ECJ: ‘Fack Ju Göhte’ no longer immoral

27. February 2020

What more than 7 million viewers did not find immoral is not a violation of moral values: the European Court of Justice has annulled the previous rulings against the trademark registration of ‘Fack Ju Göhte’ .


‘Fack Ju Göhte’ immoral in the lower instances

Fack Ju GoehteIn September 2015, the application for registration of the famous film title ‘Fack Ju Göhte’ as a trade mark was rejected by the Board of Appeal with reference to Article 7(2) UMV for all the goods and services applied for on the ground that the application was contrary to public policy and morality.
The European Court of First Instance (CFI) also confirmed this decision at first instance (ref. T69/17) – we reported: “Fack ju Göhte” today before the CFI: humour or immorality?

EuGH annuls judgements of the lower instances

Today’s judgment of the ECJ annuls the judgment of the ECJ (Case T69/17) and also the decision of the Board of Appeal against the trade mark registration. As the Advocate General already assessed in his Opinion, the ECJ does not see any violation of morality in the film title and refers to the right of expression in trademark law.

The highest European Court explained that, in particular, the examination carried out regarding the perception of the trade mark applied for by the relevant public in the lower instances was erroneous. Although the Board of Appeal had assessed the reputation of the film and film title ‘Fack Ju Göhte’ , it took the view that the use of the insult ‘Fack Ju’ as a film title did not indicate its social acceptance. “Fuck you” was offensive and immoral and would also be perceived as an insult, not relevantly altered by the addition of “Göhte”, especially since the disputed film title did not describe the content of the film.

Since more than 7 million German viewers saw this film

The ECJ contradicted this argumentation. For the examination of immorality it is not necessary for the title of a film to describe its content, the court stated. Although the success of a film does not automatically prove the social acceptance of its title, it is at least an indication of such acceptance. And since more than 7 million German viewers watched the film ‘Fack Ju Göhte’ in cinemas, obviously without being disturbed by the film title, and since this film was even approved for young viewers, it could be assumed, according to the ECJ, that ‘Fack Ju Göhte’ was not perceived as morally reprehensible by the general German-speaking public.

Although the term “Fack Ju” could be associated with the English expression “fuck you”, the Court stated, the sensitivity could be much greater in the mother tongue than in a foreign language. Moreover, the title of the comedy in question – to which there were other sequels – and hence the mark applied for consisted not only of that English expression as such but also of its phonetic transcription into German, supplemented by the element ‘Göhte’.

It follows from all this that ‘Fack Ju Göhte’ is not perceived by the general German-speaking public as an infringement of fundamental moral values and norms of society, the ECJ ruled and set aside the judgments against the trademark registration of the previous instances.

Would you also like to protect your trademark or brand?

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

 

Sources:

Judgement of ECJ Fack Ju Göhte EU:C:2020:118

Image:

geralt | pixabay.com | CCO License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconConstantin Film,  ECJ,  Elias M'Barek,  Fack Ju,  Fack ju Göthe,  film,  film title,  Goethe

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.