• 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

Reversal of the BGH case law on the burden of proof

26. October 2021

The years-long legal dispute over the cancellation application against the German colour mark ‘lawyer’s NJW-Orange’, used in the best-known professional German journal for lawyers, has now been decided before the BGH. This is particularly noteworthy because it is a reversal by the BGH from its previous case law on the burden of proof.

Farbmarke Orange

The colour mark ‘Orange’ is used for the German “Neue Juristische Wochenschrift”, the best-known professional journal for lawyers in Germany, and has been protected as German trade mark since 2009. In October 2015, an application for cancellation of this colour mark was filed, essentially on the grounds of lack of distinctiveness, but to no avail.
The cancellation request against the ‘Orange’ had failed both at the German Patent and Trade Mark Office (DPMA) and before the Federal Patent Court (BPatG). In 2020, the BPatG – the court of last instance – ruled that it could be assumed that the colour orange of the disputed colour mark had become established in the relevant legal trade circles as a result of its constant representation for ‘legal journals’ – even if this could not be proven beyond doubt.

According to the BPatG, it was not possible to establish that the use of the abstract colour as an indication of origin in the field of legal journals had become established in the trade pursuant to § 8 (3) Trade Mark Law. Nor was any reference made between the respective colour and the publishing house Beck Verlag, for example in the sense of a classic corporate colour.

Nearly everyone knows the ‘lawyer’s NJW-Orange’

However, since the “Neue Juristische Wochenschrift” has been the leading professional journal in Germany for many years, no lawyer can avoid it, the BPatG had found. Therefore, the BPatG  considered that the colour ‘orange’ registered as a trade mark for the goods ‘legal journals’ was likely to be asserted in the relevant public and referred to the documents submitted and the circumstances known to the court – meaning the depiction of the disputed colour mark in the court’s journals and also its presence in advertising.

However, it was not possible to establish distinctiveness beyond doubt, the BPatG finally ruled, and also referred to the unresolved legal question of the burden of proof. In other words, were the doubts about the proof of acceptance in the relevant public to the detriment of the applicant for cancellation?

Burden of proof of trade acceptance

This has now been decided by the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) (I ZB 16/20). In contrast to former case law, the BGH saw the burden of proof with regard to acceptance by the public on the publishing house Beck Verlag, which is the trade mark proprietor of the disputed colour mark ‘lawyer’s NJW-Orange’. The publisher would now have to provide additional evidence of acceptance by the public and, if necessary, also submit further evidence, in particular a demoscopic expert opinion. Alternatively, the Beck-Verlag publishing house can also request a court expert opinion in order to prove beyond doubt that NJW-Orange has become established in the market.

This BGH decision is remarkable above all because it is a complete reversal of its previous case law. The BGH thus explicitly takes up European case law. The ECJ has already ruled several times – most recently in the highly regarded Ferrari [testarossa] judgment of 2020 (C:2020:854) – that the trade mark proprietor of an EU trade mark bears the burden of proving that the trade mark has been “put to genuine use” within the meaning of this provision or that he must prove those circumstances from which the (continued) existence of his trade mark results. In its Ferrari judgment of 2020, the ECJ also emphasised that the question of the burden of proof of genuine use in proceedings concerning the cancellation of a trade mark does not fall within the competence of the member states.

Now the BGH has implemented this requirement and has abandoned its previous case law in favour of EU law: From now on, the burden of proof for the justification of the continued existence of a trade mark lies with the trade mark proprietor in Germany as well.

Do you need protection oder defence in trade mark law?

Our attorneys have many years of expertise in trade mark law as well as in the entire field of intellectual property and are authorised to represent you before any court – in Germany and also internationally.
Please feel free to contact us if you are interested.


 

Sources for text and image:

BGH judgement ”lawyer’s NJW-Orange”, I ZB 16/20

 

 

  • share  1 
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconOrange,  Juristenzeitung,  colour mark orange,  Beck Verlag,  burden of proof,  NJW-Orange,  Ferrari,  traffic enforcement,  ECJ law,  BGH,  Ferrari ruling,  ECJ,  burden of proof traffic enforcement,  case law,  reversal of case law,  BGH adapts to ECJ,  Juristen-Orange

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

Torhaus Westhafen
Speicherstrasse 59
D – 60327 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]