• 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
      • Clara Elinor Grünewald
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Part 2 of German MaMoG in force: Invalidity and revocation of a trade mark

7. May 2020

Part 2 of the MaMoG will enter into force on 1 May 2020. It concerns the proceedings for invalidity and revocation of a trademark, which can now be conducted either in court or before the DMPA.

Nichtigkeit und Verfall einer Marke

MaMoG since 2019

The German Trademark Law Modernization Act (MaMoG) came into force on January 14, 2019. It mainly brought changes for opposition and term of protection in trademark law as well as new national types of trademarks. Part 2 of the MaMoG, which came into force on 1 May 2020, now deals with proceedings for nullity and revocation of a trademark.

Invalidity on the basis of an earlier right

From 1 May 2020, under § 51 Trade Mark Law, a request for a declaration of invalidity and cancellation of a registered trade mark – or for withdrawal of protection of the part of an international registration covering Germany – may also be filed at the DPMA on the basis of an earlier conflicting right within the meaning of §§ 9 to 13 Trade Mark Law. Up to now, these proceedings could only be conducted before the ordinary courts; now, under Part 2 of the MaMoG, this is also possible before the DPMA.

Moreover, § 51 (2) to (4) Trade Mark Law contains special provisions according to which a declaration of invalidity on the basis of conflicting earlier rights is excluded in certain cases (e.g. in case of acquiescence of the younger trade mark or non-use of the earlier trade mark).

Invalidity on the basis of absolute grounds for refusal

There is no change for all proceedings concerning invalidity of a trade mark on the basis of absolute grounds for refusal. Already in the past and in the future a corresponding request must be filed with the DPMA. Reasons for invalidity are an infringement of §§ 3, 7 or 8 Trade Mark Law in the case of trade mark registration, i.e. if the trade mark was not eligible for registration, if the applicant could not be the owner of a trade mark or if there were absolute grounds for refusal.

Request for invalidity of a trademark at the DPMA

A request for invalidity of a trade mark at the DPMA must be filed in writing and the facts and evidence serving as substantiation must be indicated (Sec. 53 (1), first and second sentence, Trade Mark Law) by means of an appropriate form of the DPMA.

Application for revocation of a trademark

The revocation proceedings can – with applications filed as from 1 May 2020 – be fully carried out at the DPMA. Up to now, the applicant had to pursue his application before the ordinary courts if the trade mark proprietor objected to the application for revocation and cancellation of his trade mark. Like the applications for revocation of a trade mark, a revocation request must be filed in writing, including the facts and evidence serving as substantiation, using a corresponding form of the DPMA.

Under § 49 Trade Mark Law, the registration of a trade mark is revoked on request and cancelled if it has not been used within a period of five years. In this context, we would also like to refer to the recent decision of the highest European Court of Justice (ECJ), according to which a trademark owner can even claim retroactive trademark infringement for an unused trademark within the five-year period – even after the trademark had been revoked.

If the owner of the registered trademark does not object to the declaration of revocation and cancellation of his trademark, it will be declared revoked and cancelled (§ 53 (5) MarkenG). This has also been the case so far, so it is not an amendment.

Revocation proceedings concerning collective or certification marks always before the DPMA

A revocation procedure for collective or guarantee marks can only be conducted exclusively at the DPMA. As for other trade marks, the reason for revocation of collective or certification marks is the non-use of a trade mark beyond the 5-year period.

There are further grounds for revocation for collective or certification marks. For collective marks, § 105 Trade Mark Law applies; for guarantee marks, further grounds for revocation are provided in § 106g Trade Mark Law.

Invalidity and revocation of a trade mark: either in court or before the DMPA

Both the invalidity of a trademark on the basis of conflicting earlier rights and the revocation of a trademark (except collective or guarantee trademarks) can also be asserted by means of an action before the ordinary courts. As the new status as of 1 May allows proceedings for invalidity of a trade mark and revocation of a trade mark to be conducted both before the DPMA and before the ordinary courts, it is important to note that a request for the same subject matter of dispute between the parties may only be filed either at the DPMA or at the ordinary court.

Do you need support in trademark law proceedings?

Our attorneys have many years of expertise in trademark law as well as in the entire field of intellectual property and are entitled to represent you before any office or court in Germany as well as internationally.
Please contact us if you are interested.


 

Sources:

Pressemitteilung des DPMA

Image:

Couleur | pixabay.com | CCO License

  • share  18 
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet  
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconGermany,  DPMA,  German trademark law,  MaMoG,  five-year period,  application for revocation,  proceedings,  collective marks,  trademark law modernization law,  warranty marks,  revocation of a trademark,  application for revocation of a trademark,  nullity of a trademark,  part 2 of MaMoG,  in court,  5-year period,  5 years use of the trademark

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
This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Recent Posts

  • Design protection in China: Amendment 2021 25. February 2021
  • EPO practice of national patent offices – more uniform 18. February 2021
  • BGH: Black Forest ham – not only packaged in the Black Forest 16. February 2021
  • UK trademark after Brexit: earlier UK trademark in opposition 16. February 2021

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:

16. February 2021
BGH: Black Forest ham – not only packaged in the Black Forest

BGH: Black Forest ham – not only packaged in the Black Forest

16. February 2021
UK trademark after Brexit: earlier UK trademark in opposition

UK trademark after Brexit: earlier UK trademark in opposition

11. February 2021
EU figurative marks: Panthé figurative mark – a panther mark?

EU figurative marks: Panthé figurative mark – a panther mark?

9. February 2021
BGH ruling: Classe E versus German E-Klasse

BGH ruling: Classe E versus German E-Klasse

4. February 2021
Protecting domain names as trademarks

Protecting domain names as trademarks

1. February 2021
UK ruling: Parallel Trademarks in Amazon Sales

UK ruling: Parallel Trademarks in Amazon Sales

Footer

Contact

Franklinstr. 61-63
D-60486 Frankfurt am Main
Germany

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Customer Reviews

Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB Patentrecht, Markenrecht, Eigentum hat 4,78 von 5 Sternen 23 Bewertungen auf ProvenExpert.com

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
  • Info secure emails
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

© Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form