• 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

Retail services as TM: from Apple flagship store to online shop

9. March 2020

Retail services proteced as trademark: Does this include the Apple flagship store or an online shop, and also a trading platform? The German Federal Patent Court now presented his view as a guiding principle decision.

According to trademark law in the European Union, a graphically representable sign can be placed under trademark protection if it helps to distinguish goods and services of one company from those of other companies (see Directive 2008/95/EC on the approximation of trademarks in the EU).

However, in the case of a retail service the purpose is to sell goods to the consumer. This retail trade involves, in particular, the selection of a range of goods and the offer of various services which are intended to induce a consumer to conclude the contract of sale for these goods with this trader instead of with one of his competitors. In this respect, a retail service is not dependent on the origin of the goods or which and how many brands are represented in its offer.

Retail services as a trademark

The situation is different for a retail service under trademark protection. The admissibility of trademark registrations for the service of a retailer has been recognized since the Praktiker decision (EU:C:2005:425) of 2005 of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). However, the ECJ has so far not made a clear statement as to whether the protection of a retail trade mark only covers the retail trade with third-party goods/services or also that with own products.

Therefore, the Federal Patent Court (in German: Bundespatentgericht (BPatG)) considered the specific activity of a retailer for the assessment of a retail service as a trademark. This consists in facilitating the sale of goods produced by third parties by means of presentation measures including consultation, but not in the sale itself, explained the Federal Patent Court in a recent landmark decision.

Guideline decision for retail services with own goods

The sale of own goods is not a service within the meaning of Class 35; rather, it is covered by the trademark, the BPatG held as a guiding principle. Only the retail trade with third party goods is to be regarded as capable of being registered as a trade mark, because a trading activity requires the procurement of goods from third parties.

The BPatG stated that an online trading service does not prevent this, but – regardless of whether it is online trading or stationary trading – trading with one’s own goods does not fall within the scope of protection of a retail service trade mark. Likewise, trade in goods of the own licensor is not eligible for trademark protection (in connection with acts of use of a licensee according to § 26 para. 2 MarkenG old version in connection with § 158 para. 5 MarkenG). Even if a trader, when selling his own goods via an online shop, offers a particularly attractive presentation, free telephone advice on the product or particularly simple ordering options, this alone serves to enhance the value of the product he has manufactured as such and is an integral part of the sale, the BPatG specifically clarified its decision with regard to online trading.

In the context of online trading please also notice our article: Danger for design protection: Products offered online belong to the previously known designs

The BPatG also concluded from the ECJ’s remarks in the decision on the Apple Store that trademark protection cannot extend to the sale of one’s own goods because this does not include “services” within the meaning of Art. 2 of the Trade Mark Directive 2008/95.

Apple Flagship Store as a retail services trademark

Apple flagship store
Apple flagship store

Therefore we take a closer look at the Apple Store decision of the ECJ. The representation of an Apple Flagship Store was registered in 2010 by the USPTO as a three-dimensional trademark for “retail services related to computers, computer software, computer peripherals, mobile phones, consumer electronics and accessories and related product demonstrations”. That representation showed the typical retail outlets which Apple refers to as the Apple Flagship Store, in the form of a multi-coloured drawing.

The international registration of this trademark was not so easy, in 2013 the DPMA (German Patent and Trademark Office) refused to extend the protection to Germany on the grounds that the depiction of the point of sale was nothing more than the representation of an essential aspect of the commercial services of this company and this could not be understood as an indication of the commercial origin of the goods. Apple filed an opposition and finally, in July 2014, the ECJ ruled on this interesting retail service mark.

The representation of the equipment of a sales outlet, such as an Apple flagship store, can be registered as a trademark under certain conditions, the ECJ ruled. Since the Apple Flagship Store was represented in a graphic representation by means of a totality of lines, contours and shapes, it could be a trademark, the ECJ stated. As with any trade mark, the prerequisites for this were that the sign had to be distinctive and that the sign was not descriptive of the characteristics of the goods and services concerned.

In addition, the ECJ added in RN 20 the requirement that a significant departure from the norm must be demonstrated where the sign consists in the representation of the configuration of the spatial surroundings in which the services for which the mark is sought are provided.

With regard to the registration of the retail service as a trademark, the ECJ ruled that a sign such as the Apple Flagship Store – if there is no classical ground for refusal such as lack of distinctiveness – may also be registered for services, provided that these services are not an integral part of the sale of these goods. In the trade mark application, Apple had mentioned, inter alia, as services the organisation in such stores of demonstrations of the goods exhibited there by means of seminars.

The representation of the equipment of a sales outlet in the form of a drawing alone could therefore be registered as a trade mark for services, the ECJ ruled, if these consist of services relating to goods but do not form an integral part of the sale of those goods themselves, provided that such representation is capable of distinguishing the services of the applicant from those of other undertakings.

Would you also like to protect your trademark or design?

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

 

Sources:

Judgement of BPatG (in German)

Image:

Press release about Apple Flagship Store

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconApple Flagship Store,  BPatG,  DPMA,  Flagship Store,  Germany,  integral part of sale,  leading principle,  online shop,  online trade,  online trading service,  origin of goods,  own goods,  point of sale,  Praktiker judgement,  principle decision,  product demonstrations,  retail service,  retail service as a trademark,  retail service trademark,  sale of goods,  stationary trade,  Trademark,  U.S.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Nastasia says

    4. October 2020 at 19:11

    Very interesting article. Regarding Apple Flagship store case, could you please tell me what is the number of the BPatG decision (after ECJ ruling)?

    Reply
    • Katja Wulff says

      5. October 2020 at 11:34

      Dear Nastasia,

      thanks for your friendly comment. We would be happy to provide you with the relevant reference number for the BPatG ruling, it is 29 W (pat) 41/17.

      Best regards

      The team of Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte

      Reply

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

© 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.