• 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

Erdinger beer glass: no trademark protection as 3D mark

29. September 2020

Beer manufacturer Erdinger tried to protect the Erdinger beer glass as a 3D brand – but in vain. In this interesting case, the CJEU clarified the IP protection of variants of common shapes, relevant for many 3D trademarks.

Erdinger BierglasEven if this year’s Oktoberfest has to be cancelled due to the Corona situation, we would like to make an interesting contribution to the Oktoberfest theme. Beer producer Erdinger Weißbräu Franz Brombach (Germany) tried to protect the Erdinger beer glass as a 3D trademark – but failed with this request both before the EUIPO Board of Appeal and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

IP Protection of variants of common shapes

In the interesting case of 2017 concerning the Erdinger beer glass – the Weissbräu Erdinger beer glass – which was to be protected as a 3D trademark, the CJEU specified the case law and principles for the protection of variants of common shapes. This is a relevant topic especially for 3D trademarks, which are often exactly one specific variant of already known shapes.

The CJEU emphasized that the mere fact that a shape is a “variant” of the usual shapes of this category of goods is not sufficient to refuse trademark protection (according to lack of distinctiveness under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009). Rather, this assessment is always a case-by-case examination, explained the CJEU. However, according to the case-law, the more closely the shape applied for as a trade mark approximates to the shape in which the product concerned is most likely to be found, the more likely it is that the mark is devoid of any distinctive character, the Court added.

Erdinger beer glass – special design and experience?

Glasform Erdinger Bierglas

The plaintiff Erdinger accused the Board of Appeal (the contested decision) of having failed to take into account the fact that the shape of the beer glass Weissbräu Erdinger differs significantly from conventional beer glasses in several respects. Erdinger’s beer glass has an extravagant and special design. In addition, the special shape of the glass is reminiscent of a trophy, which the consumer will also associate, as a special experience, so to speak.

But the court rejected this argumentation. Not only does the Erdinger glass show a slight narrowing in the middle of the lower part, but other manufacturers also did this with their glasses, as the internet research of the Board of Appeal had shown. And the decorations, which resemble the pattern of a soccer, do not make the Erdinger glass unique either, other comparable glasses also show similar patterns. The shape of the Erdinger beer glass is therefore usually the same as the large glasses available on the market, the CJEU held.

The fact that the Board of Appeal was unable to prove that there are no truly identical glass shapes on the market does not invalidate this assessment, the Court made clear.

 

Novelty or originality not relevant for distinctiveness

Moreover, neither novelty nor originality are decisive criteria for assessing the distinctiveness of a trademark, the CJEU added, referring to the 2010 judgment on the Lindt Golden Rabbit.

Even the plaintiff’s argument that she is the only company marketing the glass as a shape could not convince the CJEU. This marketing of Erdinger beer glass could not be interpreted as an indication of commercial origin. The design of the glass in question could – at most – be regarded as a new design and not as an indication of the origin of the goods in question because of its shape which differs slightly from the shapes already on the market.

The CJEU therefore dismissed the action and upheld the decision of the Board of Appeal, which had refused trademark protection for the Erdinger beer glass as a 3D mark on the grounds of lack of distinctiveness.

Would you also like to protect your brand or your brand name?

Our attorneys will be happy to advise you. Please contact us if you are interested – we look forward to your call!


 

Sources: 

Judgement of CJEU, EU:T:2017:754

Image:

blende12 | pixabay.com | CCO License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag icon3D Mark,  beer glass,  Erdinger,  Erdinger beer glass,  Erdinger wheat beer,  EU:T:2017:754,  EuG,  glass,  glass shape,  Oktoberfest,  shape mark,  variant of known shape

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

© 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.