• 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

Nespresso coffee capsules lose trademark protection in Germany – for the moment

12. December 2017

For the moment, Nestlé’s Nespresso coffee capsules lose their trademark protection as an international registered 3D trade mark in Germany. On Friday the German Federal Patent Court ruled and temporary put an end to a dispute over the popular coffee capsules that had lasted for years.

IR mark is as protected as a national mark

Kaffeekapseln

The decision follows a long-standing trademark dispute between the Swiss Ethical Coffee Company (ECC) and Nestlé over Nespresso coffee capsules. In summer of 2014, the German Patent and Trade Mark Office (DPMA) decided that the German part of the three-dimensional internationally registered trademark (IR mark) for Nespresso coffee capsules had to be deleted (Case IR 763 699 – S 290/11 Lösch). This has now been confirmed by the Federal Patent Court.

For the moment, Nespresso coffee capsules are no longer covered by trademark protection in Germany (IR 763 699) for the goods “coffee, coffee extracts and coffee-based preparations, coffee substitutes and artificial coffee extracts” in class 30 after Nice Classification (NCL). The court pointed out in particular that an IR mark is as protected as a national mark. On the other hand, they are also subject to the same rules on the withdrawal and cancellation of protection as national trademarks.

This decision on Nestlé’s Nespresso capsules is based on the German Trademark Act (§ 3.2 No. 2 MarkenG). Accordingly, trademark protection is excluded for signs which represent a form which is necessary to achieve a technical effect. This is based on the public interest to prevent the owner of the trademark right from monopolizing technical solutions for himself. According to the Federal Patent Court (BPatG), the negotiated case is a packaging container with only a technical design. Because the packaging gives a granular product its shape – as in the case of coffee. Packaging is to be equated with the shape of the goods. This also applies if the same technical effect could be achieved by an alternative form of packaging.

In his argumentation, Nestlé pointed out that today’s coffee machines no longer had the only central piercing mandrel, but three thorns perforating on the sides of the capsule, through which a mixture of water and air would be introduced at a certain pressure. Therefore, the concrete design would not technically be conditioned. However, the BPatG made it clear that even further development of the technology does not lead to evaluate obsolete technical characteristics as no longer technical.

Do the essential features fulfil a technical function?

In order to check the protective barrier, “the essential characteristics of the form” shall be determined. These include

  • the overall impression that the form conveys
  • the visual inspection of the sign
  • where appropriate, consideration of the elements relating to packaging

The German Federal Patent Court came to the conclusion that non-functional features of the three-dimensional trade mark, which are essential for the overall impression of the form, are not apparent.

Cancellation proceedings before the Federal Supreme Court

Nestlé’s request to suspend the cancellation procedure was also rejected. The Swiss refer to two cancellation appeal proceedings currently before the Federal Supreme Court – we reported (25 W (pat) 78/14 – square chocolate bar packaging and I ZB 4/17 or 25 W (pat) 59/14 – glucose bars). Even if a similar constellation arises in parts of these two cases and similar legal questions could be assessed, this does not constitute a foregoing or a reason for suspension.

It remains to be seen whether this judgment ends the trade mark dispute in the present case or whether it merely represents a further stage in the long-standing dispute. This is because an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court is admitted on the basis of § 83 para. 2 No. 1 MarkenG.

Update from 31 January 2019: Nespresso case before German BGH

In fact, an appeal on points of law was filed before the German BGH, which rendered its judgment on 31 January 2019 (BGH, I ZB 114/17, ‘Kaffeekapseln’) – but not on the actual appeal against the BPatG’s judgment. Because in the meantime, insolvency proceedings and bankruptcy proceedings had been opened against the assets of the applicant ECC in November 2018. Nestlé was of the opinion that the trade mark proceedings were thereby interrupted – rightly so, the Federal Supreme Court ruled in its ‘Coffee Capsules’ judgment.

In principle, the opening of foreign insolvency proceedings is also recognised (under § 343 (1) sentence 1 InsO), and an interruption of the legal proceedings can also be based on this (§ 352 (1) sentence 1 InsO). However, the prerequisite is that insolvency proceedings exist, and foreign proceedings are not always recognised as such. According to the BGH, insolvency proceedings only exist if they pursue approximately the same objectives as the proceedings provided for in the Insolvency Code. This was the case in the Nespresso case, the highest German court ruled.

The German Trademark Act, in turn, does not contain any regulations on what effects the opening of domestic or foreign insolvency proceedings has on the assets of one of the parties to the appeal proceedings. What is more, this question is even disputed in case law. But in the case at hand, the BGH settled: in the case at issue, it was to be assumed that the insolvency proceedings had interrupted the legal dispute. The parties are competitors in the field of distribution of coffee products. The cancellation proceedings were thus suitable for strengthening the competitive position of the applicant, all the more so as the request for cancellation in the dispute had already been successful in two instances.

For if the cancellation applicant and the trade mark proprietor are competitors, there is a connection between the cancellation proceedings and the assets of the cancellation applicant even without pending infringement proceedings, the BGH ruled as a lead decision.

You want national or international protection for your trademark?

Our lawyers advise you individually and together with you develop the right strategy to protect your trademark.

CAT-call_en

 

Sources:

text:

Juris Bundespatentgericht 25 W (pat) 112/14

BGH Judgement ‘Kaffeekapseln’, I ZB 114/17

 

pictures: Diermaier | pixabay | CCO License  

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconNepresso,  Nespresso,  Nespresso coffee capsules,  Nestle

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.