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

Dr. Julian Wernicke in GRUR Prax 13/2026 on the General Court’s decision in “LAMUCCA v. MUKA”

/in

The General Court’s decision in “LAMUCCA v. MUKA” (T-390/25) provides interesting clarifications regarding the likelihood of confusion in the context of service marks, the weight given to phonetic similarities between marks, and the significance of foreign-language terminology in trademark practice.

In his article „LAMUCCA gegen MUKA: Verwechslungsgefahr durch Klangnähe bei Dienstleistungsmarken“ (LAMUCCA v. MUKA: Likelihood of Confusion Due to Phonetic Similarity in Service Marks) in GRUR Prax 13/2026, Julian Wernicke, an attorney at law at BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT, analyzes the decision of the General Court of the European Union in the case “LAMUCCA v. MUKA,” in which the court confirmed the invalidity of the EU figurative mark MUKA due to a likelihood of confusion with the earlier Spanish mark LAMUCCA.

The ruling makes it clear that even where there is only a slight visual similarity, a high degree of phonetic similarity may be sufficient to establish a likelihood of confusion. In the conceptual comparison of trademarks, meanings in foreign languages may be taken into account only if they are actually understood by a significant portion of the relevant public. Furthermore, the court clarifies the requirements for proving use of service marks that preserves the rights associated with them.

The full article by Julian Wernicke, which includes helpful practical guidance, is available here in German to registered users of Beck Online.

Dr. Ute Kilger, Patent Attorney at BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT

transkript: Dr. Ute Kilger on clarity ob­jec­tions in Euro­pean patent grant pro­ceedings

/in

Why excessive clarity requirements can undermine the value of patents

In issue 2/2026 of the life sciences magazine transkript, BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT Partner and Patent Attorney Dr. Ute Kilger examines a development that many patent applicants before the European Patent Office (EPO) are increasingly viewing with concern in her article “Clarity as a deadly wonder weapon”.

The article focuses on the question of how so-called clarity objections under Article 84 EPC are applied during examination proceedings. As a patent attorney specializing in pharmaceuticals and life sciences, Dr. Ute Kilger regularly advises companies and research institutions in European patent grant proceedings and is well acquainted with the practical challenges before the European Patent Office through many years of experience.

Using practical examples from the fields of diagnostics and antibody development, the article illustrates how extensive clarity requirements can affect the commercial value and future enforceability of patents. Excessive limitations on patent claims may result in patent rights losing their effectiveness against imitators and so-called fast followers.

Dr. Kilger therefore advocates a balanced and consistent application of clarity requirements in patent examination proceedings. At the same time, she encourages patent applicants to make active use of existing communication channels with the European Patent Office in order to raise awareness of problematic developments and foster constructive dialogue.

The full article, “Clarity as a deadly wonder weapon”, was published in the current issue of transkript and is available to subscribers in German.

Dr. Sebastian Engels and Dr. Julian Wer­nicke in the GWA Blog on the impact of the EmpCo Directive on adver­tising and agencies

/in

In a recently published interview in the GWA Blog (Association of Germany’s Leading Communications Agencies), Dr. Sebastian Engels and Dr. Julian Wernicke, attorneys at law at BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT in Berlin, provide insights into the impact of the EmpCo Directive on advertising, green claims, and sustainability communication across the EU.

The interview focuses on the practical implications of the EmpCo Directive for advertisers and agencies, particularly with regard to environmental and sustainability claims in advertising. The new EU rules will significantly increase compliance requirements for “green” and environmental claims, making substantiation and transparency essential for legally compliant communication.

A key topic is how companies can adapt their sustainability advertising and communication strategies to meet these evolving regulatory standards. The authors highlight that the use of general environmental claims will become more restricted and that companies will need to carefully review how such claims are presented across marketing channels.

At the same time, the interview addresses the risks associated with overly cautious communication (“greenhushing”). Remaining silent about sustainability efforts may lead to long-term competitive disadvantages and missed market opportunities, as consumers increasingly expect transparent and credible communication.

The German-language article “Greenhushing leads to long-term customer loss” was published in the GWA Blog and is available online. For further information on the EmpCo Directive & Green Claims, including timelines and practical guidance for compliant sustainability communication, please refer to our dedicated overview page.

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.