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 \u2013 TECH-CRAFT vs. TOOLCRAFT.<\/p>\n
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.
\nThe 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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n