• 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

CFI: Post horn no reference to Deutsche Post

13. November 2020

Deutsche Post AG lost in the trade mark dispute over the well-known figurative mark: a stylised post horn on yellow paint. A very similar figurative mark had been registered from Slovenia – rightly so, the CFI held that a post horn had only a weak distinctive character in the EU.

Streitmarken Post
Left: Deutsche Post Logo; right: Slovenia Post Logo

“Post horn” Deutsche Post: EU figurative trademark since 1998

Since 1998, Deutsche Post AG has held European trademark rights to the well-known figurative sign of a stylised post horn on yellow colour. Nevertheless, Pošta Slovenije d.o.o., (Slovenia) applied for a similar figurative mark as a postal logo in 2017, also a stylised post horn on yellow colour, and designed in a very similar way.

Deutsche Post immediately filed an opposition against the trade mark application with reference to the likelihood of confusion with its own earlier trade mark. However, the opposition was rejected by both the European Trade Mark Office and the Board of Appeal.

Similarity – but no likelihood of confusion

In the contested decision, the Board of Appeal found an average degree of similarity between the conflicting signs. In addition, both marks claimed similar or even identical goods and services. Normally, in such a constellation, a likelihood of confusion is very likely.

Nevertheless, the Board of Appeal found that there was no likelihood of confusion between those signs. The Board of Appeal found that the distinctive character of a stylised post horn, such as the earlier mark, was too weak.

CFI: Posthorn no reference to Deutsche Post

The European Court of First Instance (CFI) confirmed this view of the Board of Appeal.

Deutsche Post referred in vain to other judgments on similar figurative marks, for example in the Marriott and winged griffin case. The Marriott case was not comparable, the CFI found, because there the disputed sign did not represent a sector such as a post horn for the transport of mail.

Similarly, the German Post claimed in vain that the earlier mark had a higher degree of distinctiveness. The CFI also rejected this and explained in detail that a stylised post horn has long been widely used throughout the EU because of its historical link to postal delivery.

The same applies to the signal colour yellow of the post, which has been used by several postal operators in the EU for almost two centuries. After privatisation, their work – with Posthorn logos – was continued by national postal operators. Stylised postal horns in the EU existed quasi in coexistence.

In this context, please read our article: Long coexistence of trademarks in the EU

As examples of this, the Posthorn logos from the Czech Republic, Austria, Spain, Bulgaria, Cyprus and Lithuania were presented.

Posthorn-Logo in der EU
from left to right: Spain, Austria, Czech, Lithuania, Bulgaria

 

Therefore, the Court held that the relevant public would not associate the post horn or the colour yellow with Deutsche Post or its services. Instead, consumers would generally associate a stylised post horn with the services of several national postal operators. There is therefore no likelihood of confusion between the Deutsche Post figurative mark and the more recent Post figurative mark from Slovenia, despite similarity.

The CFI dismissed Deutsche Post AG’s action in its entirety.

Do you want to defend your trademark or brand?

Each case is considered individually and carefully. Take advantage of a non-binding recall appointment with us today!


 

Sources:

Judgement of CFI “Post horn in EU”, EU:T:2020:537

Image:

127071 | pixabay.com | CCO License

 

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconPosthorn-Logo,  average similarity,  figurative mark Posthorn,  postal delivery,  Posthorn in the EU,  judgment,  historical postal delivery,  ECJ,  no likelihood of confusion,  distinctive character,  low distinctive character,  Posthorn,  Deutsche Post,  similarity,  Post Logo,  earlier mark with a reputation

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

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

© 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]