Legal Areas
© Copyright 2024– BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT
“General Court overrules previous instance: No likelihood of confusion between CODY’S and CODE-X for marks in beverages sector” – Article by Dr. Florian Schwab in WTR
On the online portal of the trade journal World Trademark Review (WTR), BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT partner Dr. Florian Schwab discusses a recent trademark law decision of the General Court in (T-198/21) Ancor Group GmbH v. European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of February 23, 2022.
The court set aside the decision of the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO and – upholding the decision of the Opposition Division – finally rejected the opposition based on the word and figurative marks CODY’S against the word mark CODE-X (essentially each claiming beverages in class 42 of the Nice classification).
In contrast to the Board of Appeal, the European judges found no likelihood of confusion between the marks. They based their decision primarily on the fact that CODY’S and CODE-X are visually and phonetically similar, at most, to an average degree. The hyphen creates a syllabic and visual break, which does not apply to the apostrophe. For goods in the beverage sector, it cannot be assumed that they are primarily ordered orally (for example in a busy and noisy bar where phonetic differences may not be clearly perceived) and, thus, the phonetic comparison is not per se primarily relevant.
In Dr. Schwab’s opinion, the result reached by the court is convincing. It is worth noting that the overruling of the Board of Appeal is more the exception than the rule in EU trademark matters.
The full article in English is available online for registered users of WTR here!
Health Claims Regulation: The use of trademarks containing health claims finally banned
As of 20 January 2022, the use of trademarks containing health claims will be definitively prohibited.
Many products are advertised by the food industry as having health benefits. Margarine were “low in cholesterol” and dried fruits would “promote digestion.” Even in the case of sweets, the vitamin content is emphasised. By doing so, it is intended to provide incentives to buy. Many consumers are willing to spend more money on “healthy” foods.
Increased consumer protection through the Health Claims Regulation
Due to the risk of misleading consumers about alleged health effects, the European legislator passed the Health Claims Regulation (Regulation (EC) 1924/2006) in 2006. It regulates the requirements for nutrition and health claims on foods. The Regulation has a wide scope of application. The term “claim” includes any labelling or advertising of the product that declares or even implies that a food has positive nutritional characteristics or that establishes a link between the food and health.
Nutrition claims are only permitted if they are truthful. The Health Claims Regulation lists over 200 common claims such as “sugar-free” or “low-fat” and sets limits for the product name. For example, if a product contains less than 0.5 g of sugar per 100 g, it may be advertised as “sugar-free”.
Health claims are generally prohibited under the Regulation. Products may not simply be associated with a specific health effect (“helps strengthen the immune system”). However, there is the option of going through an approval procedure at the German Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL). In 2012, the EU additionally adopted another regulation (Regulation (EU) No. 432/2012), which contains a list of permitted health claims for foods. According to this Regulation, a product with a specified minimum calcium content, for example, may refer to its positive influence on bone preservation.
Need for action by trademark owners
Word and figurative marks are also to be understood as identification of the product. Therefore, they may not readily contain nutrition or health claims such as “low carb” (Hamburg Court of Appeals, 24.04.2014 – 3 W 27/14 ). Terms such as “vital”, “fit” or “healthy” are also affected. A well-known German drugstore chain found themselves forced to rename its own brand “Das gesunde Plus” to “Mivolis” due to the Health Claim Regulation.
To protect trademark owners, the Health Claims Regulation contains a transitional provision. According to Art. 27(2), products with trademark protection existing before 1 January 2005 (also by virtue of reputation or renown) may be marketed until 19 January 2022. Only from 20 January 2022, the requirements of the Regulation will also be applying to these trademarks. Trademark owners who nevertheless use trade names that are prohibited under the Health Claims Regulation after 19 January 2022 face the risk of warnings and official measures.
In this context, trademark owners from the food industry should conduct a review of their older trademarks.
Authors: Dr. Andreas Dustmann, Attorney at Law, and Tim Stripling, Research Assistant
Protection of the Swiss Army Knife
With judgement rendered on 15 June 2021 in the case 33 O 7646/20, the Regional Court of Munich ruled on the use of various indications of geographical origin with reference to Switzerland. Specifically, the ruling concerned the famous Swiss Army Knife of the traditional Swiss company Victorinox. The court clarified that the indications “SWITZERLAND”, “SWISS” as well as the national flag of Switzerland enjoy a high reputation as indications of geographical origin in relation to pocket knives and multifunctional tools.
Background
In the underlying case, the traditional Swiss company Victorinox objected the offer and sale of pocket knives and multifunctional tools bearing the indications “SWITZERLAND” and the national flag of Switzerland. In the proceedings Victorinox has alleged that the defendant was appropriating the reputation of these indications of geographical origin for its own products. While Victorinox manufactures the Swiss Army Knife and multifunctional tools in Switzerland, the defendant’s products are produced in China and belong to the low-price segment. Nevertheless, these products were labelled with the words “SWITZERLAND” and the national flag of Switzerland. Only a small sticker on the back of the packaging of the defendant’s pocket knives and multifunctional tools suggested that the products originate from China.
Decision of the court
The Regional Court of Munich granted the action and specifically ordered the defendant to cease and desist from further offering and selling the pocket knives and multifunctional tools at issue. The indications of geographical origin “SWITZERLAND”, “SWISS” and the Swiss national flag are associated with special values in relation to pocket knives and multifunctional tools and therefore enjoy a high reputation. In the court’s opinion, this is even obvious in the legal sense and hence does not require proof in the proceedings. Consumers would expect a high quality from products from Switzerland; this is also true for the Swiss Army Knives sold by Victorinox. Accordingly, such products are associated with special quality and enjoy a high degree of recognition. By transferring this special reputation to the products manufactured in China by means of “Switzerland-related” labelling, the defendant exploits this reputation. The public would inevitably make an association with the quality and tradition of Swiss pocket knives, with the result that the target public would associate the defendant’s products with similar ideas of quality and value. For these reasons, it was irrelevant whether or not the indications on the defendant’s products misled customers as to the geographical origin of the products. Delocalising references on the products, such as a reference to their origin from China, were irrelevant.
Conclusion
The Regional Court of Munich has confirmed that the indications of geographical origin “SWITZERLAND”, “SWISS” as well as the national flag of Switzerland enjoy a special reputation with respect to pocket knives and multifunctional tools. Accordingly, there is an extended scope of protection with regard to these and similar indications. Whether or not an indication referring to Switzerland in connection with pocket knives and multifunctional tools may actually mislead the public, is of no relevance. Insofar as the products are not from Switzerland, the use of such indications is per se unlawful.
“General Court confirms invalidity of EUTM on ground of bad faith due to prior contractual relationship” – Article by Dr. Florian Schwab in WTR Daily
In his recent article “General Court confirms invalidity of EUTM on ground of bad faith due to prior contractual relationship” on the online portal of the trade journal World Trademark Review, WTR Daily, BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT attorney Dr. Florian Schwab discusses a decision of the General Court of the European Union in case T-853/19 of 17 March 2021, Reza Hossein Khan Tehrani v. European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).
The General Court upheld the judgment of the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO on the cancellation of the EU trade mark registration EARNEST SEWN on the grounds of bad faith. This judgment contributes to this legal concept, which is difficult to categorise and which is often decided on a case by case basis by the EU Courts. It discusses the relevance of prior contractual relationships between the trade mark proprietor and the cancellation applicant for the assessment of bad faith filing.
Registered users of WTR Daily can access the full article in English online here!
General Court denies likelihood of confusion between pharmaceutical marks containing “mar” element- Article by Dr. Florian Schwab in WTR Daily
On the online portal of the trade journal World Trademark Review, WTR Daily, BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT attorney Dr. Florian Schwab discusses a decision of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-261/19 20 January 2021, Stada Arzneimittel AG v. European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).
In this judgment, the Court upholds the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO that there is no likelihood of confusion between the EU figurative mark sign OPTIMAR and the earlier word mark MAR. For the latter, the evidence of genuine use was limited to “medical nasal sprays”.
With regard to the identically covered element MAR, the Court considered a below-average distinctive character in view of the recognisably descriptive reference to “sea” for medical nasal sprays.
The full article in English is available to registered users of WTR Daily here online and as a PDF download!
Podcast: Dr Eckhard Ratjen in an interview with “Packaging Europe” on the topic of “Trademarks in Packaging”
In view of the large range of similar products, packaging is becoming increasingly important in the context of the purchase decision. The competition for new packaging formats and designs is correspondingly fierce. So it seems likely to protect not only the product but also its packaging under trademark law.
But under what conditions is it possible to register packaging as a trademark? When does trademark protection make sense at all? And which parts of a packaging can be protected as a trademark?
In an interview with Elisabeth Skoda from the online platform “Packaging Europe”, BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT attorney Dr. Eckhard Ratjen answers these and other questions, explains practical examples and gives useful tips on the protection of product packaging under trademark law.
The interview is available as a podcast here!
“Over and out” – Brexit update on trade marks and designs after the end of the transition period
The transition period expired December 31, 2020 and UK now finally left the EU. Even though the negotiating parties came to a free trade and cooperation agreement on December 24, 2020, the rules from the Withdrawal Agreement remain in place and will regulate the covered IP rights going forward. We provide a refresher and update as to what this means for trade marks and designs.
Even though the EU Commission and the UK government agreed on the outlines of a free trade and cooperation agreement on December 24, 2020 which has been confirmed by EU and UK, respectively, in the meantime, this does not change the fact that, as of January 1, 2021, EU rights such as, in particular, EU trade marks and Community designs have lost their effect in the UK. The same applies to their counterparts under WIPO administration, i.e. International Registrations under the Madrid Protocol and the Hague Agreement. We have already provided detailed information about this on other occasion.
Here now, very briefly, are the main and updated implications since January 1, 2021, as they follow from the Withdrawal Agreement.
Cloning of registered EU rights
Registered EU trade marks and Community designs will be copied – cloned – completely, fully automatically and free of charge into the national register of the United Kingdom. In this respect, nothing further is required. The same applies to collective marks and certification marks. In view of the large number of IP rights, the process will take some time. We will keep the owners of IP rights represented by us apprised of any development and details.
Right of refiling for pending applications
Until September 30, 2021, it will be possible to file a fee-based national application for a pending IP right as a trade mark or design, and in particular to claim the priority of the EU application. The effect of this is that no third party could have acquired an IP right with better priority in the UK since the EU application was filed. We will work out a suitable IP strategy with the owners of IP rights represented by us.
International registrations of trade marks and designs
If international registrations designate the EU, the process described above will generally apply the same way. The IP rights are cloned into the United Kingdom or establish a refiling right in the national register. In any case, this means that these rights will initially leave the international regime under the administration of WIPO and become purely national rights. We will work with the owners of IP rights represented by us to find solutions to any related problems.
Unregistered IP rights
Unregistered Community designs will continue as “Continuing Unregistered Designs” for their remaining term of protection. In addition, a “Supplementary Unregistered Design” will be established for first publications in the United Kingdom, which will only be valid there. Unregistered trade mark rights are generally not recognized under EU law. However, the United Kingdom, like some other national legal systems of the EU member states, offers a fallback option, the so-called “passing off”, which, however, regularly depends on use in the United Kingdom (“goodwill”).
Continued identification of a clone
IP rights derived from EU rights will remain permanently identifiable by their registration numbers. They will continue in the UK with the original registration numbers and add national prefixes.
Ongoing proceedings and contracts
Pending proceedings in the UK based on an EU right will continue with the clone. The reverse does not apply: National UK rights lose their protection against EU rights. Proceedings are concluded automatically.
Existing treaties concerning the EU may have to be interpreted as to whether they continue to apply to the UK. We advise on how to avoid pitfalls and how to share any financial burdens between the parties appropriately.
Genuine use and reputation
Use of an EU trade mark in the UK will no longer maintain an EU right as of January 1, 2021. If there is no genuine use in the EU, the EU trademark will be subject to cancellation at the end of 2025. The reputation of an EU trade mark in the UK will already be definitively disregarded in the EU as of January 1, 2021.
Renewal and representation in the register
National clones are subject to the same expiration dates as EU rights. They can be renewed, and in some cases must be renewed in the short term. This also applies to those EU rights for which the fees have already been paid before the expiration of protection, but the expiration of protection is not until 2021. The fees must be paid again for the clones. The moderate costs for renewal have already been fixed by the UK Office. We will inform the owners of the IP rights we represent about deadlines and payment dates.
We will continue to represent the clones in the UK Register. This also applies to refilings.
Opt-out and strategic advice
IPR owners are not obliged to make use of the above options. Cloned IP rights can be abandoned by simple declaration (“opt-out”) free of official fees. The deadline for filing a subsequent application can remain unused. However, it is useful not only to consider each individual case but to develop an overall strategy for the UK. This may include adjusting the filing strategy overall. We advise with the aim of optimizing the administration and costs for the owners of IP rights.
Dr Florian Schwab discusses in WTR Daily a recent judgement of the CJEU in the dispute about the protectability of the word/figurative mark “achtung!”
On the online portal of the trade journal World Trademark Review, WTR Daily, BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT attorney Dr Florian Schwab reports on a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union according to which the EU part of the international registration of the word/figurative mark “achtung!” was refused protection.
The CJEU thereby confirmed the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), which had already rejected international protection of the trademark “achtung!” in 2019 due to a lack of distinctive character.
Dr Schwab summarizes the judgment as follows:
“The decision of the Court of Justice (ECJ) confirms the view of the previous instances that for the Union trademark part, an international registration of the word/figurative mark Achtung! of a German advertising agency for goods and services in various classes is devoid of distinctive character. The mark will be perceived by the German-speaking public only as an ordinary advertising message and not as an indication of commercial origin. Therefore, the finding of the lower courts that the mark is purely descriptive is in itself incorrect and irrelevant to the decision on the merits. Moreover, earlier conflicting decisions of national offices or even of the EUIPO on the identical sign do not preclude this”.
The complete article in English is available here as a PDF document for download!
Dr. Eckhard Ratjen in an interview with the trade magazine “Tightly Packed” on the subject of “How do I protect a packaging?”
In the jungle of offers of similar products, not only the brand serves potential customers as orientation, but also the packaging of a product. Consequently, their protection under trademark law is often very important.
But how do you proceed when applying for registration of a packaging as a trademark? Which protection criteria must be fulfilled? And can any product packaging be protected as a trademark?
BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT attorney Dr. Eckhard Ratjen addresses these and other questions as well as prominent case studies in his detailed interview with the trade magazine “Tightly Packed”.
Read the complete interview here (temporarily only available in German)!
