Bibi & Tina – Likelihood of confusion if one of two equivalent word elements of the earlier figurative mark is adopted

In issue 2/2025 of the magazine “Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht in der Praxis” (GRUR-Prax, Intellectual property and copyright law in practice), BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT partner and attorney at law Dr. Eckhard Ratjen addresses the question of whether there is a likelihood of confusion when an averagely distinctive word element is taken from an earlier figurative mark that contains another, equivalent and averagely distinctive word element.

The background to this is the decision of the General Court of the European Union of 13.11.2024 – T-444/23 Tina/Bibi&Tina, which confirms a likelihood of confusion in Classes 3 and 5 between the name element “Tina” of the EU trade mark Bibi&Tina and the disputed trade mark “Tina” for various cosmetics and hygiene products. Although there was a slight visual similarity and an average phonetic similarity, the General Cout took the view that the disputed trade mark would be perceived as a different version of the earlier mark “Bibi&Tina” and not as an independent mark with a different commercial origin.

The full article by Dr. Eckard Ratjen entitled „Bibi & Tina – Verwechslungsgefahr bei Übernahme eines von zwei gleichwertigen Wortbestandteilen der älteren Bildmarke“ was published in German in the printed edition of GRUR-Prax 02/2025. Subscribers to beck-online.de can also access the article online here.

In the first issue of the new year of the journal “Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht in der Praxis” (GRUR-Prax), attorney at law Dr. Julian Wernicke from BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT addresses the question of whether the rights of a German trade mark or a Union trademark are exhausted when the trade mark owner has already placed the products on the market in Türkiye. This issue touches on a key topic in trade mark law practice that is of significant importance to internationally operating companies.

This question was raised in a decision of the Higher Regional Court of Nuremberg (OLG Nürnberg) dated October 29, 2024 (3 U 881/24, GRUR-RS 2024, 30069 – Kurukahveci Mehmet Efendi). The trade mark owner had filed a lawsuit against an importer who had brought the coffee cans, which the trade mark owner had sold in Türkiye, into Germany and resold them. The court ruled in favor of the trade mark owner, deciding that placing products on the market in Turkey does not lead to trade mark exhaustion in relation to the holder of a German or Union trade mark. In making its decision, the court also took into account the provisions of the “Additional Protocol to the Agreement of September 12, 1963, establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Türkiye.”

The full article by Dr. Julian Wernicke, titled “No exhaustion of a Union trade mark when products are placed on the market in Türkiye,” can be found in the printed edition of GRUR-Prax 01/2025. Subscribers to Beck-Online can also access the article in German online here.

In the online magazine “World Trademark Review Daily”, BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT partner and attorney at law Dr. Florian Schwab comments on a recent decision of the General Court of the European Union (Case T-157/24), in which the Luxembourg court confirms the absence of a likelihood of confusion between the EU word mark application CHIPSY KINGS and Meica’s opposition mark in the form of the word mark CURRY KING.

In its decision of December 11, 2024 in Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG v EUIPO (case T-157/24), the General Court of the European Union, following the decision of the Board of Appeal, found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the EU trademark application CHIPSY KINGS and the earlier EU-part of the International Registration of the word mark CURRY KING.
Both trademarks had identically or similarly claimed, inter alia, “meat, vegetarian and potato products and retail food services”. However, the overall impression of the two composite marks was sufficiently different.
In particular, the common component KING(S) was considered to be laudatory and, therefore, of weak distinctiveness. CURRY was also understood as descriptive of Indian food or of the spice.
In the case of the younger trademark, the component CHIPS was considered either also being descriptive (“chipsy”) or, on the contrary, fanciful and, in this case, more distinctive – and thus less likely to cause confusion – compared to the (common) element KING(S).

The article by Dr. Schwab entitled “General Court confirms lack of likelihood of confusion between CHIPSY KINGS and CURRY KING” was published on January 7, 2025 and is available online for registered users of WTR Daily here.

General principles of Customs law and connecting factors under trade mark law

Every year, goods worth trillions of euros are imported into the European Union from third countries or brought into another third country via the EU. In that context, not only customs law details have to be taken into account. Aspects of trade mark law as well come into play, as imported or transit goods can also be counterfeit products.

BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT attorney at law Fabio Adinolfi addresses the broad field of import and export as well as associated legal “traps” in his article “Einfuhr, Durchfuhr, Grenzbeschlagnahme, Produktpiraterie, Zoll – Ein Überblick im Dschungel des Imports/Exports” (Import, transit, border seizure, product piracy, customs – an overview in the jungle of import/export) in GRUR-Prax 2024, issue 747.

In addition to the basics of customs law and types of procedure, Fabio Adinolfi deals in detail with the import and transit of original and counterfeit products from a trade mark law perspective as well as the prerequisites regarding the destruction of imported or exported goods, whether they are original products or product piracy.

Registered users of beck-online.de can download the article in German here.