• 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
      • Eva Maria Amoah
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Sports shoe with dotted lines: position or figurative mark?

18. January 2018

Did the competitor’s pictures to German shoe manufacturer Deichmann show different types of sports shoes? At the centre of the proceedings concerning the use of an earlier mark, classification as a figurative or positional mark, was a sports shoe with dotted lines.

Sports shoe with dotted lines in the center

positiionmark in disputeThe judgment is based on an infringement action and a counterclaim for registration of a Union trade mark by the intervener, Munich, SL (Spain). The Union trade mark was registered on 24 March 2004 under number 2923852 for Nice Class 25 ‘Sports footwear’. In an infringement action before the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) against the applicant, Deichmann SE (Germany), Deichmann filed a counterclaim on 29 June 2010 and, in January 2011, filed an application for revocation of the mark in question and for a declaration of invalidity of that mark.

The Cancellation Division upheld the revocation of the mark, but the subsequent appeal of the EUIPO Board of Appeal annulled that decision. The point at issue was proof of genuine use of the mark during the relevant period. Did the illustrations in the catalogues submitted show different types of sports footwear to which different crossed lines were attached? And was the Board of Appeal entitled to take into account coloured elements even though the trade mark application was filed in black and white?

EuG dismissed Deichmann’s complaint

The European Court (Court of First Instance (CFI)) therefore had to assess both the validity of the evidence provided on the use of the mark and to decide whether the question “figurative mark or positional mark” is irrelevant for trademark protection. The applicant Deichmann claimed that the contested mark did not appear on the shoes in the evidence produced. Since the mark at issue is a figurative mark, the marketing of shoes which look so similar cannot prove use of that mark.

However, the CFI dismissed the action. The differences between the mark at issue and the variants used by the intervener on sports footwear are negligible. Nor can colour be regarded as one of the essential factors which confer distinctive character on that mark.

It follows from case-law that the condition of ‘genuine use’ of a trade mark within the meaning of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 may be satisfied if the trade mark is used only in conjunction with other elements which are adjacent to it or even superimpose it, provided that the trade mark continues to be perceived as an indication of the origin of the product concerned, the CFI held. Account must be taken of the fact that the particular graphic design, in the form of a cross, clearly designates the element for which protection is sought, in solid lines, and dashes the contours of the goods in question on which it is affixed.

The Court also pointed out that case-law recognises the possibility that figurative marks are in reality ‘positional marks’. A trade mark, even if it is to be regarded as a position mark, remains at the same time a figurative mark, the CFI clarified. Dashed lines are regularly used in comparable situations in this way, the Court of First Instance added, that is to say in relation to various goods to which a trade mark is affixed, without necessarily indicating in detail all the contours or other characteristics of those goods. In the present case, the use of dotted lines was clearly intended to facilitate the understanding of the fact that the mark at issue was intended only to protect the cross depicted in solid strokes, in a particular position on sports footwear.

The Board of Appeal was also right to consider that the mark at issue could not be separated from the shape of part of the product for which it was protected (the upper part of a sports shoe). The decisive factor for the scope of protection of a trade mark is the way in which it is perceived solely on the basis of the sign as it is registered, the CFI held.

Source:

Judgement of CFI EU:T:2018:7

Image:

PIRO4d /pixabay.com / CCO License  

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet  
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconEuropean Court,  Unionmark,  position mark,  Evidence,  figurative mark,  proof of genuine use,  Deichmann,  judgement CFI,  sport shoe,  dotted lines,  scope of trademark protection,  figurative or position mark

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

  • Chianti vs GHISU: advantage taken unfairly of the earlier mark 15. April 2021
  • ECJ on legitimate interest: Appeal against amendment of specifications 15. April 2021
  • Case law product similarity: consumer attention 13. April 2021
  • OLG Düsseldorf: No compensation for damages of gratuitous licensing 9. April 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:

15. April 2021
Chianti vs GHISU: advantage taken unfairly of the earlier mark

Chianti vs GHISU: advantage taken unfairly of the earlier mark

15. April 2021
ECJ on legitimate interest: Appeal against amendment of specifications

ECJ on legitimate interest: Appeal against amendment of specifications

13. April 2021
Case law product similarity: consumer attention

Case law product similarity: consumer attention

9. April 2021
OLG Düsseldorf: No compensation for damages of gratuitous licensing

OLG Düsseldorf: No compensation for damages of gratuitous licensing

9. April 2021
Alkemie vs. Alkmene: word/figurative mark vs. earlier word mark

Alkemie vs. Alkmene: word/figurative mark vs. earlier word mark

26. March 2021
Colour mark: systematic arrangement of colours decisive

Colour mark: systematic arrangement of colours decisive

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