• 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

Trademark „en Vogue“: company signs in trademark law

16. September 2019

The trademark “en Vogue” and its possible cancellation were negotiated before the BPatG and the applicant for cancellation was not even famous VOGUE in this case. The court also specified the current case law on company signs in German trademark law in its judgement.

Company signs in trademark law

The German trademark law provides for trademark protection for so-called company signs. According to § 5 (1) MarkenG, company signs are protected as business designations, and this includes all signs that are used in business trade as a company name, as a company term, as a company logo or as a special designation of a company.

The Case: Refusal to Delete the “en Vogue” Trademark

en VogueIn the present case, the complainant had made use of this protective right and had the sign “en Vogue Sculptured Nail Systems” registered as a company sign under trade mark protection According to § 5 (1) MarkenG in January 2009. The complainant relied on this and applied for the cancellation of the German word and figurative mark “en Vogue”, which was registered in November 2013 for partly identical goods, with reference to the likelihood of confusion.

The Federal Patent Court (BPatG) dismissed the appeal in the same way as the German Patent and Trade Mark Office (DPMA) had dismissed it before. The appellant could not rely on the likelihood of confusion caused by the component “en vogue” in her senior company name, the court ruled, because the term “en vogue” was understood as a descriptive, promotional statement – in the field of fashion, appearance, beauty and also cosmetics. Consequently, the company sign ‘en Vogue Sculptured Nail Systems’ is devoid of distinctive character. The company logo consists of purely descriptive information.

Contrary to her assumption, the complainant had no nationwide injunctive relief against the owner of the challenged trademark “en Vogue”, which is why the German Patent and Trademark Office rightly rejected the application for cancellation of the challenged trademark, the BPatG ruled.

Trademark “en Vogue” – is anyone thinking of THE VOGUE?

Since November 1982, the word and figurative mark “VOGUE” has also been protected in Germany by Condé Nast Germany GmbH. Condé Nast and Advance Magazine Publishers are owners of numerous famous and influential media brands such as VOGUE, Vanity Fair, GLAMOUR, GQ, The New Yorker and WIRED. In fact, the contested trade mark “en Vogue” is also a disputed trade mark in another opposition procedure between the German trade mark applicant and the proprietor of the famous trade mark VOGUE, Advance Magazine Publishers Inc.

Jurisprudence for company signs

In addition, the court has clarified the case law on company names in German trademark law. According to the BPatG, the creation of protection for a company sign initially presupposes its use and occupation in the course of trade. This was independent of whether it was a domestic or foreign designation, but required that it could be inferred that a permanent economic activity had begun.

However, the BPatG specified that the origin of protection was only incompletely regulated in § 5 (2) MarkenG. Because even from the name function follows only the ability to individualize, but not to differentiate between companies, the origin of the protection presupposes the distinctive character of the sign. The BPatG made it clear that a company sign can only fulfil its function through distinctiveness, namely to distinguish companies from each other, and referred to the ruling of the Federal Court of Justice on the Amazon’s search function – we reported.

The decisive factors for the assessment of distinctiveness were therefore the goods or services claimed and also the opinion of the domestic circles involved or addressed. In essence, it had to be assessed whether the sign was suitable to act as the name of the company and thus to be perceived.

Differences between register marks and company signs

However, there are differences in the distinctiveness required for the registration of trade marks between company signs and registered trade marks, the BPatG explained. While register marks must be able to distinguish a product or service nationwide, the ability to distinguish between companies or business establishments and business units at a regional level may be sufficient for company designations.

The distinctiveness required for § 5 (2) MarkenG differs from the concrete distinctiveness required for the registration of trademarks under § 8 (2) No. 1 MarkenG, the court ruled. It also includes an examination as to whether the sign is descriptive within the meaning of Paragraph 8(2)(2) and (3) of the Markengesetz. A particular originality, e.g. through peculiar word formation or the use of colloquial language, is not necessary for the distinctive character of company signs; it is sufficient if there is no descriptive use for the activity of the company.

However, the BPatG ruled that the company sign “en Vogue Sculptured Nail Systems” did not possess the necessary distinctive character and dismissed the appeal against the trademark registration “en Vogue”.

Would you also like to protect your company signs or brand?

Our lawyers are experienced in trademark and patent law, national and international law.

 

 

 

Sources: 

Judgment of BPatG “en Vogue” (in German)

Image:

justynafaliszek /pixabay.com / CCO License  

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag icon§ 5 MarkenG,  BGH,  BPatG,  cancellation,  company logo,  company name,  company signs,  Cosmetics,  distinctive character,  distinctiveness,  fashion,  likelihood of confusion,  originality,  register marks,  trademark "en Vogue",  Trademark law,  trademark protection,  use in the course of trade,  Vogue,  withdrawal

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

© 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.