Portrait of Jan Göring, Patent Attorney at BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT in Bremen

The Patent Lawyer: Jan Goering on the growing importance of clarity objections under Article 84 EPC

/in

Why current EPO practice is reshaping the boundaries between examination and claim interpretation

Art. 84 EPC is the focus of a recent article by Jan Goering, German and European Patent Attorney and partner at BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT, published in The Patent Lawyer. In his article, “Inventing unclarity: the expanding reach of Article 84 EPC”, he examines the growing significance of clarity objections during European patent prosecution and questions whether current examination practice remains aligned with the provision’s original purpose. 

Drawing on the legislative history of the European Patent Convention as well as international patent frameworks, Jan Goering argues that Article 84 EPC was originally intended to facilitate the examination process rather than serve as a substantive mechanism for restricting otherwise patentable claims. According to his analysis, the provision has gradually evolved into a frequently invoked tool that can have a significant impact on the wording and effective scope of patent claims.

The article also explores whether an increasing focus on linguistic precision risks diverting attention from what patent law is ultimately designed to protect: the technical contribution of an invention. Jan Goering discusses recent developments in EPO case law and places them in the broader context of the division of responsibilities between examining divisions and the courts. This development is closely linked to the debate surrounding decision G 1/24, which we discussed in our article “New Decision G 1/24 – Claim Interpretation Before the European Patent Office”.

Particular attention is given to the relationship between claim breadth and clarity. The central argument of the article is that broad claims are not necessarily unclear. Rather, the decisive question is whether the skilled person can understand the claimed technical teaching. Questions regarding the extent of patent protection should ultimately be addressed through the substantive requirements of patentability and through judicial claim interpretation, rather than through an expansive application of clarity objections during examination.

BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT contributes the Germany chapter to the Legal 500 IP Guide

/in

The 10th edition of the Legal 500 Intellectual Property Comparative Guide has now been published and once again features a contribution from BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT.

For the Germany chapter, BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT partners Dr. Daniel Herrmann and Dr. Michael Rüberg provide an overview of the current intellectual property landscape and highlight key aspects of German IP law. In doing so, they contribute to an international reference work that offers companies and in-house counsel practical insights into the legal frameworks of different jurisdictions.

The Legal 500 Comparative Guides cover a wide range of jurisdictions and practice areas, enabling readers to compare legal developments and regulatory environments across the globe. The publication of the 10th edition once again demonstrates the continued value of this resource for businesses operating internationally and the advisors who support them.

The full country chapter, Legal Landscapes: Germany – Intellectual Property, is available on The Legal 500 website and can also be downloaded as a PDF.

Dr. Alexander Thamer and Dr. Martin Schaefer in GRUR 17/2026 on AI-generated image reproductions

/in

In GRUR 17/2026 (pp. 1234 ff.), Dr. Alexander Thamer and Dr. Martin Schaefer discuss the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court’s “Unterwasserfotos” decision (I-20 W 2/26). The article focuses on the question under which circumstances AI-generated reproductions of copyrighted photographs may constitute copyright infringement.

In their article, the attorneys at law at BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT’s Berlin office analyze the decision in light of recent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. They also explore its implications for the copyright assessment of AI-assisted image modifications. In particular, they discuss the requirements for free adaptation. Additionally, they examine the protectability of photographic creative elements and the copyright classification of AI-generated output.
The article further highlights the practical challenges arising from the growing ability of artificial intelligence to imitate creative works. As these technologies continue to evolve, copyright questions become increasingly important. The authors therefore examine whether existing copyright law provides sufficient answers. They also discuss whether future legislative action may be required. In this context, the broader European regulatory framework established by the EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) provides an important reference point for the ongoing discussion.
The full article in German, entitled “Underwater wildlife photography in the age of AI-based reproducibility. Commentary on the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court’s ‘Unterwasserfotos’ decision“, is available via Beck-Online and in GRUR 17/2026, starting on page 1234.
Readers interested in the underlying case may also consult the full text of the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court’s “Unterwasserfotos” decision (I-20 W 2/26).
Dr. Julian Wernicke, Attorney at Law at BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT

Advertising by airlines with SAF – Dr. Julian Wernicke in GRUR-Prax 15-16/2026, 545 on the Higher Regional Court of Cologne’s decision of 8 July 2026 (Case No. 6 U 68/25)

/in

The Higher Regional Court of Cologne (OLG Köln) has emphasised the need for transparency in advertising relating to sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). The decision highlights the high standards applicable to environmental advertising in the run-up to the implementation of the EmpCo Directive.

In the current issue of GRUR-Prax, BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT attorney at law Dr. Julian Wernicke discusses the decision of the Higher Regional Court of Cologne (8 July 2026, Case No. 6 U 68/25), according to which an airline’s advertising of “more sustainable flying” through the use of Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) may be misleading if material information is not disclosed in a timely manner.

A key factor in this case was that consumers could gain the impression from the airline’s advertising that the sustainable aviation fuel financed by them would be used for the specific flight they had booked. In fact, it was only explained at a later stage that the fuel could also be used on other flights and at a later point in time.

According to the court, this constitutes material information that must be apparent in the immediate context of the advertising claim itself. A subsequent explanation provided through additional links is therefore not sufficient.

The decision underlines the high standards applicable to environmental advertising, particularly in light of the rules introduced by the EmpCo Directive, which will take effect on 27 September 2026. Companies are well advised to ensure now that any limitations or explanations relating to advertised environmental benefits are communicated clearly, transparently and in a timely manner.

The full article in German by Dr. Julian Wernicke, „Nachhaltiger Flugkraftstoff: Irreführende Umweltaussagen von Airlines“ (engl. Sustainable Aviation Fuel: Misleading Environmental Claims by Airlines), is available for download to registered users of beck-online here.

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.