Dr. Rudolf Böckenholt, Attorney at Law at BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT

Dr. Rudolf Böckenholt in GRUR-Prax 8/2026 on the transparency of GTC in competition law

/in

“Word salad in general terms and conditions – served up in a way that is opaque, unreasonable, and misleading” – Article by Dr. Rudolf Böckenholt in GRUR-Prax Issue 8/2026, April 30, 2026

In response to a decision by the Hamburg Regional Court at the end of 2025 (Dec. 30, 2025 – 327 O 38/25, BeckRS 2025, 40587), BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT partner and attorney at law Dr. Rudolf Böckenholt analyzes in his article the misleading nature and invalidity of an airline’s non-transparent general terms and conditions (GTC).
The focus is on overly complex clauses regarding choice of law, venue, and refunds, which, in the court’s view, unreasonably disadvantage consumers.

Furthermore, Dr. Böckenholt provides practical guidance on the requirements for clear and understandable terms and conditions and the legal risks companies face when using confusing or unfair “clause formulations.”

The full article by Dr. Rudolf Böckenholt – primarily aimed at companies, legal departments, and practitioners in competition and consumer law – is available here in German to registered users of Beck Online.

Dr. Eckhard Ratjen, Attorney at Law at BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT

The Trademark Lawyer: Dr. Eckhart Ratjen on the enforce­ment of non‑traditional trade marks in Germany

/in

In Issue 2/2026 of The Trademark Lawyer, Dr. Eckhard Ratjen, LL.M. (London), partner at BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT and attorney at law, examines the challenges involved in enforcing non‑traditional trade marks in Germany. Under the title “Litigating non-traditional trademarks in Germany: why market context matters for color and shape marks”, his article addresses the question under which conditions color and shape marks are recognized as indicators of commercial origin in trade mark infringement proceedings. Rights holders continue to face heightened hurdles in this area, as courts often view colors and product shapes as merely decorative or functional elements.

Non‑traditional trademarks in the focus of recent case law

The analysis is based on the traditionally cautious approach taken by German courts toward non‑traditional trade marks. While trademark use is generally straightforward in the case of word and figurative marks, color and shape marks regularly require a closer examination as to whether the relevant public actually perceives the sign as indicating commercial origin.

Drawing on recent decisions of the Higher Regional Courts of Hamburg and Düsseldorf, the article demonstrates that enforcement is nevertheless possible. A careful assessment of the specific market environment in which the sign is used is always decisive. Relevant factors include industry‑specific labeling practices, the level of recognition of the sign, and the composition of the relevant public.

Market context and perception of the relevant public as decisive criteria

Referring to the decisions of the Higher Regional Courts of Hamburg (“Zinc Yellow”) and Düsseldorf (“Smiley”), Dr. Eckhart Ratjen, an attorney at law specializing in trade mark law at BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT in Bremen, shows that color and shape marks can, under certain conditions, be successfully enforced in Germany. The decisive question is whether the sign clearly stands out in the relevant market and is perceived by the addressed public as an indicator of origin.

Particular importance is attributed to the specific context of use, industry‑typical marking habits, and the composition of the relevant public. Depending on the market, the perception of general consumers or that of specialized professional circles may be decisive — an aspect that is of central importance in trade mark litigation.

The article also highlights the role of well‑substantiated evidence, such as consumer surveys, market studies, or proof of brand recognition. It becomes clear that, in the enforcement of non‑traditional trade marks under German trade mark law, success depends less on abstract protectability and more on the concrete market situation.

The full  article was published in The Trademark Lawyer, Issue 2/2026, pages 48–52, and is available for review as a PDF here.

Digital product adver&Shy;tising and sustaina­bility claims: Dr. Sebastian Engels and Dr. Julian Wernicke in “Digital Law” on the empowering consumers directive

/in

In Digital Law 2026, Dr. Sebastian Engels and Dr. Julian Wernicke, both attorneys at law at BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT’s Berlin office, examine the impact of the new EU Empowering Consumers Directive (Directive (EU) 2024/825) on sustainability claims and environmental advertising.
In their German-language article “Umweltwerbung wird auch zukünftig möglich sein” (environmental advertising will remain permissible) the authors analyze the tightened requirements for so‑called green claims and explain under which conditions companies will continue to be allowed to advertise with environmental and sustainability‑related statements. The background is the amendment of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, which will apply in Germany from the end of September 2026.

Non‑traditional environmental claims under increasing regulatory scrutiny

The analysis begins with the future ban on general and unsubstantiated environmental claims. Common terms such as “environmentally friendly,” “climate‑neutral,” or “sustainably produced” will face stricter requirements. Such claims will only be permitted if they are clearly specified, verifiable, and transparent. Alternatively, they must be supported by recognized sustainability labels.
Dr. Engels and Dr. Wernicke point out that vague or sweeping environmental statements without appropriate substantiation will carry a significantly increased risk of challenges under unfair competition law. The same applies to environmental targets presented merely as future aspirations, unless they are supported by a concrete, realistic, and independently verifiable implementation plan.

Green claims, sustainability labels and information obligations for companies

A further focus of the article is the growing importance of transparency and proof. In the future, companies will need to substantiate individual environmental attributes more carefully. They must also clearly indicate which part of a product or value chain a claim refers to.
The authors emphasize that greater care will also be required when using sustainability labels. In addition to officially recognized public labels, only certifications that meet strict standards regarding independence, transparency, and oversight will be permissible. Many labels currently used in practice are unlikely to meet these requirements under the new rules.
Sebastian Engels and Julian Wernicke also highlight expanded information obligations. These include requirements relating to durability, reparability, and product longevity. Such factors are increasingly important for sustainable purchasing decisions. They will therefore face closer legal scrutiny in the future.

The German‑language article “Environmental advertising will remain permissible” by Dr. Sebastian Engels and Dr. Julian Wernicke was published in the Digital Law 2026 special supplement by SMART Media. It was distributed with the Handelsblatt and appears on page 16. The article is available as a PDF and can also be accessed online on the SMART Media website.

Graphic highlighting the designation ‘Chambers Contributor’ for the Global Practice Guides 2026 in Patent Litigation, framed by a laurel wreath

Patent litigation in Germany: Christoph Angerhausen, Dr. Daniel Herrmann and Dr. Michael Rüberg contribute once again to the Chambers Guide

/in

Current developments and practical experience in patent litigation in Germany

In the current 2026 edition of the Chambers Patent Litigation Guide, BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT partners Christoph Angerhausen (Patent Attorney, Dusseldorf), Dr. Daniel Herrmann (Patent Attorney, Frankfurt) and Dr. Michael Rüberg (Attorney at Law, Munich) are once again represented as authors of the chapter “Law & Practice – Germany”.

The contribution examines key aspects of patent litigation in Germany and provides a structured overview of the legal framework and its practical application. It addresses, among other topics, recent developments in case law, procedural particularities and strategic considerations relevant to both national and international proceedings.

The Chambers Patent Litigation Guide is published annually and is regarded as one of the leading global reference works in the field of patent enforcement. Edited by Chambers and Partners, the guide offers in-depth country reports and practice-oriented insights from leading practitioners.

The English-language contribution by the three patent experts is available online on the Chambers website.

Dr. Eckhard Ratjen, Attorney at Law at BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT

No likelihood of confusion with descriptive root element CRAFT – Article by Dr. Eckhard Ratjen in GRUR-Prax 1/2026

/in

According to a decision by the German Federal Patent Court (BPatG), there is no likelihood of confusion between the signs TECH-CRAFT and TOOLCRAFT, even though the goods are identical.

In his article in GRUR-Prax 1/2026, BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT partner and attorney at law specializing in intellectual property, Dr. Eckhard Ratjen, discusses the BPatG decision of October 14, 2025, 26 W (pat) 526/20, GRUR-RS 2025, 33163 – TECH-CRAFT vs. TOOLCRAFT.

According to this ruling, the opposition filed by the proprietor of the EU word mark TOOLCRAFT against the registration of the word/figurative mark TECH-CRAFT in Class 8 on the grounds of likelihood of confusion was not upheld; therefore, the opponent’s appeal was unsuccessful.
The BPatG saw no likelihood of confusion between the TOOLCRAFT trademark and the younger TECH-CRAFT word/figurative mark. Although the goods (hand tools) were identical, TOOLCRAFT’s distinctiveness was considered only average because the components “TOOL” and “CRAFT” have descriptive connotations. The opponent could not prove increased distinctiveness through use due to a lack of specific information on market shares, use, and recognition. Additionally, the signs differed sufficiently in terms of sound, appearance, and meaning. Furthermore, “CRAFT” was deemed unsuitable as the root component of a trade mark family.

Dr. Eckhard Ratjen concludes his article with detailed practical advice and the conclusion that the decision of the Federal Patent Court underscores the high requirements for proving the increased distinctiveness of a trade mark and for demonstrating the existence of a series of signs and their use.

Registered users of GRUR-Prax can download the full article in German by Dr. Eckhard Ratjen here.

Dr. Daniel Herrmann, Patent Attorney at BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT

“Intellectual property rights have a significant impact on business” – Interview with Dr. Daniel Herrmann in the WiWo supplement 12/2025

/in

In a supplement to the December 2025 issue of WirtschaftsWoche, Dr. Herrmann explains how small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) can protect their rights and generate growth with the help of an IP strategy.

The protection of intellectual property is particularly important for small and medium-sized enterprises, according to BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT partner and patent attorney Dr. Daniel Herrmann in an interview with the editorial team of inpact, a supplement to WirtschaftsWoche.
The risks of idea theft have increased significantly as a result of digitalization, internationalization, and the use of artificial intelligence. In addition, hacker attacks and increasing employee turnover increase the risk of knowledge leakage.

A targeted IP strategy, on the other hand, can promote growth: property rights secure market share, create exclusivity, and serve as bargaining chips for licensing or cross-licensing.
Studies show that SMEs that apply for patents are up to 20 percent more likely to grow. In the case of European patents, the probability of growth is as high as 30 percent.
A well-structured IP portfolio also increases the value of a company, as intangible assets play a decisive role in investments – think of start-ups, for example – as well as acquisitions and mergers.

The full interview with Dr. Daniel Herrmann in German is available online here.

Dr. Oliver Tarvenkorn, Patent Attorney at BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT

Patentability of AI generated inventions – article by Oliver Tarvenkorn in the IHK Magazine Lippe Nov/Dec 2025

/in

Useful guidance for patent applications involving AI‑related innovations

Artificial intelligence is the megatrend of our time and is now widely used in all areas of life. Inventions, too, are increasingly generated with the support of AI.
But are innovations that arise with the help of AI patentable? And what needs to be considered?

These questions are explained by BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT patent attorney Oliver Tarvenkorn in the November/December 2025 issue of the IHK Magazine Lippe Wissen + Wirtschaft.
The complete article is available here as a PDF file in German.

Dr. Julian Wernicke, Attorney at Law at BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT

Dr. Julian Wernicke, in GRUR Prax 23/2025, discusses statements that violate personal rights in client relationships.

/in

To what extent are statements that violate personal rights actionable in a client relationship? In a ruling, the Higher Regional Court of Dresden provided important clarifications regarding the assertion of possible injunctive relief claims.

The extent to which such statements are legally actionable is a recurring topic in case law. In a recent ruling dated 8 September 2025, the Dresden Higher Regional Court considered various statements made by a client to their lawyer, providing important clarifications regarding the assertion of possible injunctive relief claims.

In his article ‘Statements within the client relationship’ in GRUR Prax 23/2025, Julian Wernicke of BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT analyses the decision of the Dresden Higher Regional Court. This decision was based on a lawsuit filed by a lawyer who objected to statements made by her client during telephone calls and in a negative online review.

The court found that statements made in the context of a confidential conversation within a client relationship are privileged and cannot therefore be the subject of an injunction. Furthermore, the Dresden Higher Regional Court ruled that the plaintiff was not personally affected by the statements in question, since, despite her position as a partner, she is not identified with the law firm in a way that allows for direct personal attribution.

In his article, Julian Wernicke evaluates the ruling, emphasising that the privilege of confidential client consultations is integral to the legal profession. He also stresses that the question of personal involvement must be carefully examined if statements are not clearly directed at a specific person.

The full article is available in German to registered Beck Online users here.

Prof. Dr. Heinz Goddar and Melanie Müller as co-authors in Les Nouvelles, December 2025, on the potential of the PMAC

/in

Launching in 2026, the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre of the UPC offers confidential, efficient solutions for patent and SEP disputes – a flexible alternative to traditional litigation.

In the article “Potential of the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC)” in this year’s December issue of the “Journal of the Licensing Executives Society International,” the authors Rebekka Porath (Intellectual Property Fellow Innovation Network Germany), Dr. Peter Camesasca (partner at Camesasca BVBA, Brussels, Belgium), and BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT attorneys Prof. Dr. Heinz Goddar (patent attorney) and Melanie Müller (attorney at law) shed a light on the institutional framework, competence, and procedural potential of the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC).

This was established as an institutional component with the introduction of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and is intended to serve as a specialized ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) body for patent disputes from 2026 onwards. The PMAC offers mediation and arbitration for European and unitary patents as well as SPCs (Supplementary Protection Certificates). Its aim is to provide efficient, flexible, and confidential proceedings, complementing UPC litigation.

In their article, the authors see particular potential for the PMAC in SEP/FRAND disputes (Standard Essential Patents) following the EU’s withdrawal of the proposed SEP Regulation. The PMAC could fill a gap here by offering a neutral forum for licensing negotiations. However, it lacks mandatory procedures and transparency mechanism envisioned by the SEP regulation. The authors suggest introducing incentives for cooperation and partial disclosure of anonymized outcomes.

Furthermore, the recent decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in BSH vs. Electrolux and the associated expansion of the jurisdiction of European courts for cross-border patent disputes could increase the attractiveness of the PMAC for global dispute resolution.

Overall, the authors see the PMAC as a new kid on the European patent dispute block – one well worth getting to know, to engage with, and, perhaps in time, to introduce into the family of established international ADR institutions.

Members of the Licensing Executives Society International (LESI) can download the full article here.

Update January 2026: The above-mentioned article entitled „Potential of the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC)“ was selected by the board of the Licensing Executive Society International as the publication of the month in Les Nouvelles 1/2026.

Trademark litigation: The non-use defence – Article by Dr S. Engels and Dr J. Wernicke in Trademark Lawyer Magazine 4/2025

/in

The timing and choice of the most effective and admissible instrument for raising the non-use defence under the specific circumstances are crucial.

In their article “Trademark litigation in Germany: pitfalls in non-use defences”, published in issue 4/2025 of Trademark Lawyer magazine, BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT attorneys at law Dr. Sebastian Engels and Dr. Julian Wernicke highlight the key differences between German and European trade mark law regarding the use requirement and the available non-use defences in litigation.

The two Berlin-based lawyers, who are highly experienced in trade mark law, emphasise the importance of understanding the different rules for registration and enforcement of trade marks in Germany and the EU. In their article, Dr. Sebastian Engels and Dr. Julian Wernicke specifically address:

  • The advantages and risks of filing revocation requests for non-use before the GPTO or EUIPO as a defence strategy in trade mark disputes.
  • The significance of timing and the choice of the right instrument for the non-use defence – such as objection, revocation request, or counterclaim.
  • Practical guidance for trade mark owners and defendants on how to respond strategically to the use requirement and which pitfalls may arise if the defence is raised too late.
  • The differences in enforcing and defending German trade marks and EU trade marks, especially regarding the five-year grace period for use and the impact on ongoing court proceedings.

The full article is available for free on the Trademark Lawyer magazine website. You can also download the PDF of the article “Trademark litigation in Germany: pitfalls in non-use defences”.