Not every sign is worthy of protection as a trademark. The magic word is “distinctive character”. This means that only signs, which are not immediately descriptive of the products deserve trademark protection.It should be noted that there are also trademarks, the registration of which is inadmissible
1. Judgments on registrability
Not every sign is worthy of protection as a trademark. The magic word is “distinctive character”. This means that only signs, which are not immediately descriptive of the products deserve trademark protection.
It should be noted that there are also trademarks, the registration of which is inadmissible from the outset – for instance, if the sign contains a national emblem. This was the case with the following sign, which contained a part of the Bavarian state emblem.1
A review of the past year’s judgments shows that the tendency of the German and European Trade Mark Offices to apply a rather stringent test has strengthened.1.1 Distinctive character of word marks
The Board of Appeal of the European Trade Mark Office (Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market – OHIM) denied a distinctive character of Kellogg's trademark “CORN POPS”
This does not apply solely to the English-language area, since in the German language the term "Pop” has also been adopted in connection with certain cereal products.
Also, trademark protection was denied to the word marks “EXTRA EASY”3
since the signs merely provide an indication of how easy the foodstuffs are to produce. Lidl failed with its application “X-TREME SOUR”
for ice cream. The Board of Appeal of the EU Trade Mark Office determined that it is only a taste description of the product and also the incorrect spelling of the word "extreme" contributes nothing to the distinctive character.5
Likewise, the European Court of First Instance recognized no distinctive character in the trademark “REHABILITATE”
. Rather, food supplements, energy drinks and confectioneries so designated would promise to become fit again, so that the sign is purely descriptive.6
Likewise, distinctive character was denied for the word mark “GOLDEN GREEN”
for green teas, since it is only a laudatory designation.7
The Board of Appeal also could not be swayed by the fact that “GOLDEN GREEN”
already enjoys trademark protection in other EU countries.
Trademark protection was, however, granted to the sign “ITALISSIMO”
, since the relevant public would not readily draw a conclusion of a specific feature of the product from the trademark.81.2 Distinctive character of slogans
In principle, the same standards as for other trademarks apply to the evaluation of the distinctive character of slogans. Designations, which are otherwise used as advertising slogans, indications of quality or inducements to purchase, can nevertheless be regarded by the consumer as trademarks. Case law has defined criteria, as to when consumers see a trademark in a slogan. This can be the case particularly when the designation exists not only in a usual advertising message, but rather has a certain originality or conciseness, requires a minimum level of effort to interpret, or triggers a thought process in the target public.
The General Court of the European Union (GC) did not deem the word mark or the slogan "2good” to be distinctive, since it only described that the goods thus designated are especially good.9
In addition, the substitution of a word with a number in times of "text message language” would not be uncommon.
The slogan “HEALTHY EXTRA”
was deemed not to be distinctive by OHIM’s Board of Appeal, since both word parts had merely a descriptive character in respect to food and drinks.10
This is the case particularly today where many foods are treated with more and more additives and a low number of calories is desired.
Both the German Federal Patent Court and the General Court of the European Union denied trademark protection to the designation "BE HAPPY”
It is a readily understandable advertising message, which encourages one to be happy, by buying or using the goods in question.
Also, no distinctive character was granted to the slogan "I’M SLIMMING”, since it would merely describe what one could achieve with the aid of the thus designated goods, namely to lose weight.12
The EU trademark "Kornspitz. So schmeckt Österreich
!” [Kornspitz. Taste of Austria!] was canceled at the request of a competitor. The owner of the trademark is the Austrian company Backaldrin, which – according to its own report – is the largest provider of baking mixes for Kornspitz products. The Board of Appeal of OHIM regards "Kornspitz" as a purely descriptive designation for a special bakery product, so that the slogan "Kornspitz. So schmeckt Österreich!" may not be monopolized.13
The parties are also involved in a long-standing dispute in Austria over the trademark "Kornspitz”, which up to now has been decided to the disadvantage of Backaldrin.
Trademark protection was denied to the slogan "MAKE SOMETHING BEAUTIFUL”
. The slogan would only be understood to the effect that an enjoyable and tasty meal could be prepared from the foodstuffs. That the specific goods were not described directly is irrelevant, since the relevant public is accustomed to the fact that advertising slogans would frequently only provide abstract information.141.3 Distinctive character of word and figurative marks
Last year’s case law shows that increasingly stringent standards are applied to distinctive character. Where a few years ago the addition of a graphic element of an otherwise descriptive designation still helped in obtaining trademark protection, today this can no longer be said in this sweeping manner.
The following examples show that even unusual figurative components could not contribute to surmounting the hurdles to registrability: The figurative mark "pure FINE SELECTION”
was deemed to be merely descriptive of the purity of the goods.15
The relevant public would assume that the foodstuff contained no additives. The word and figurative mark "CLEAN FOOD” was also deemed to be descriptive, since this is merely a reference to food or drinks, which are free of preservatives and other additives.16
The figurative elements of the sign would merely underscore the descriptive character.
The word and figurative marks "HARMONY FOR BODY & SOUL”
with the additives "Detox & Slim”, and "Purify & Slim” as well as "Fit & Slim” were also considered to be merely descriptive, although the figurative components are highlighted and are colored.17
The figurative elements would only represent (medicinal) plants or herbs, which would naturally provide for harmony and are logically contained in the goods concerned (teas, tea-like products, etc.), so that these would contribute nothing to a capability of constituting a trademark. The figurative elements would merely strengthen the descriptive message of the signs.
If the word element of the sign is descriptive, in the specific case the word "Kornspitz”, which merely describes a wholewheat bakery product with pointed ends, it does not suffice for the registration of "The Kornspitz Company”
to highlight this element in color.18
The combination of words of different languages did not suffice for registration in the case of "LA MEXICANA QUALITY FOODS”
The Board of Appeal of the EU Trade Mark Office deemed this sign on the contrary as descriptive, since the proximity to the known words "Mexican” and "Mexico” would not escape the relevant Englishlanguage target public. The graphic design did not change anything in this respect, either.
In another decision, the Board of Appeal assumed that it is known to the relevant target public that the word "Chuao”
stood for an especially good quality of chocolate.20
In connection with the added word "Chocolatier”
and the image of a cocoa bean, the sign is clearly descriptive.
The German Federal Patent Court regarded the trademark "SCHLOSS SHOP
HEIDELBERG” as not distinctive, since it merely represented a reference to the geographical location of the shop.21
In addition, the origin of the goods was not designated, since it could only be concluded from the sign that the usual souvenir items can be acquired in a gift shop in the environment of the Heidelberg Castle. The silhouette of the castle only supported the descriptive character. The Federal Patent Court expressly referred to the fact that the same sign has already been registered as a German (DE) trademark since 1997, leads to no different outcome.
The Board of Appeal of the EU Trade Mark Office regarded the trademark "Salzburg Patisserie”
not to be capable of constituting a trademark, since the word part "Salzburg” is understood to be merely a geographical indication of origin and would also be understood as such specifically in the area of confectioneries.22
Neither the addition of the crown nor of the other graphical elements would change anything in this respect. The sign "SELECTION”
describes the identified goods to the effect that they are of aboveaverage quality, which would be selected due to their excellent properties.23
Since stars often also constitute a quality seal, the latter cannot lead to a distinctive character of the sign.
Also, Lidl lost before the General Court of the European Union with its word and figurative mark "Deluxe”. The European court deemed the sign to be a description of the quality of the goods and thus not to be distinctive.24
The graphic design, the font, the silver color on a black background, and the curved impression originating overall from the sign, emphasizes the laudatory and advertising character of the trademark and, therefore, could not help in obtaining the desired trademark protection.
A word and figurative mark of Hengsterberg was deemed to be registrable, however.25
The slogan-like word element "Aus dem Guten das Beste” [The Best from the Good] is not distinctive per se. The addition of the year "seit 1876” (since 1876), however, as well as the not marginal figurative element of an abstract and not precisely attributable landscape contribute to the capability of constituting a trademark. The Board of Appeal stressed that the figurative elements do not clearly and unambiguously represent that, which corresponds to the word components.
If a word mark alone is not granted the necessary distinctive character, it can help if a graphic design is added to the mark. Caution is required, however. The figurative components must not only represent the content of the mark or have a purely decorative effect, however. These principles were recently affirmed by the European Trade Mark and Design Network (TMDN).261.4 Distinctive character of marks consisting in a shape
The times in the beginnings of the Community Trade Mark Regulation, in which more or less every product shape was registered as a trademark, are long past. Now, courts are focused on invalidation of these 3-D trademarks. Upon submission of the British High Court of Justice, the European Court of Justice in September 2015 dealt in more detail with the requirements of the registrability of trademarks consisting in a shape.27
Specifically, it involved a long-standing dispute between Nestlé and Cadbury regarding the registrability of the KitKat bar. A trademark, which consists exclusively of a shape, which is required to achieve a technical effect, is excluded from trademark protection. In this regard, the European Court of Justice explained that this assessment refers solely to the functionality of the shape and not to the production process of the shape. In addition, the court dealt with the question of the acquisition of a secondary meaning and explained that the target public would have to see a trademark solely in the "bare” KitKat bar. The awareness of the word mark "KitKat” may not be consulted here. It now remains to be seen, how the British High Court decides on the capability of constituting a trademark of the KitKat bar.
The General Court of the European Union regarded several trademarks consisting in a shape to be non-distinctive, which represented smiling faces on circular or star-shaped forms. Consumers would be accustomed in the confectionery field to such shapes, and would see nothing corresponding to a trademark therein.28
The distinctive character of a trademark in the shape of a dough bar for corn chips and tortillas was also denied, since similar shapes could be acquired at any supermarket, and possible differences would not influence the overall impression.29
Also, the "Knoppers” package was deemed to be non-distinctive, since it only represented a package customary for confectioneries. The colors used (white, light blue and grey) are not extraordinary, either. Finally, the winding line running diagonally, which is probably supposed to represent a snow-covered mountain against a blue sky, would be considered by the consumer only to be decorative elements. August Storck pointed out that the same shape already enjoys trademark protection in EU countries. This, however, failed to change the view of the Board of Appeal of the EU Trade Mark Office.30
On the other hand, OHIM’s Board of Appeal deemed a special shape for ice cream to be distinctive, since this shape differs substantially from the different basic shapes for ice cream, which are common in the trade.31
In particular, it is unusual that a popsicle has so many scoops.
The problem with marks consisting in a shape is that it is difficult for consumers to determine a reference to the origin of the product simply from the form of the product, i.e., to recognize the form as a mark. This is due to the fact that threedimensional marks are not necessarily perceived in the same way as word marks or figurative marks, which are independent of their appearance. It is therefore necessary for registrability that the form must significantly depart from the standard or customs of the sector.
2. Conflicts between trademarks2.1 Likelihood of confusion of word marks
In the case of "IBIS” and "IBIS fresh”, likelihood of confusion was affirmed, since the word part "fresh” is insufficient to create a counterbalance to the similarity, rather this word part is merely secondary and descriptive.32
Likelihood of confusion was affirmed for "NATURVAL” and "Natür-bal”, since the signs have a high degree of similarity visually and aurally for the target public (the entire EU).33
Due to the high typographical similarity, likelihood of confusion between the trademark "LISAN” and the Lidl trademark "FRISAN” was affirmed.34
Likelihood of confusion also exists with respect to the trademarks "NATURALIA INGREDIENTS” and “NATURALIA”, since the latter is contained in the first trademark and the consumers would consider the word part "Ingredients” merely as a secondary addition, which for example, could also only be a reference to a sub-mark of the same company.35
Likelihood of confusion was also recognized for the trademark "STYX” and the Kaufland trademark "COOL STIX”, since the goods covered by the trademark application found to be similar were frequently ordered by the consumers orally or perceived acoustically (by radio advertising or verbal recommendations).36 With regard to the goods "vegetable flavorings for drinks” (Class 30) likelihood of confusion of "FRUTTINA” and "FRUITINI” was affirmed despite the descriptive meaning of the common component "Fruit”.37
In view of the average visual and above-average aural similarity, likelihood of confusion was affirmed in the case of "TinTag” and "TIC TAC”.38
Likelihood of confusion was denied for the word marks "STEVIOLA” and "Stevi-Cola”.39
Partial identity of the goods would exist, however, due to the different component "Cola" and the low distinctive character of the earlier trademark (reference to the sweetener Stevia) likelihood of confusion had to be rejected. This is a rare and extremely welcome decision of an EU institution, in which a weak distinctive character of the earlier sign has actually tipped the scales against likelihood of confusion.
Although the earlier trademark "ISSIMO” is completely contained in the later sign "YOGURTISSIMO”, likelihood of confusion was denied.40
Likewise, likelihood of confusion between the application "Chiqqo” and the Intersnack trademark "CHIO” was denied, since these are not only visually, but rather also aurally different.41
This was apparent to the relevant target public in particular, since they are short words, in which small changes also come to light more easily and since both words had no meaning for the majority of the relevant target public.
2.2 Likelihood of confusion of complex trademarks
Trademarks, which in addition to a word component have a figurative component, are designated as word and figurative marks or complex marks.
Likelihood of confusion was affirmed for the word and figurative mark "TicTacDent – THE EDUCATIONAL DENTAL KIT” and the word mark "TIC TAC” in particular due to a high phonetic similarity.42
Likelihood of confusion was affirmed for the trademark "GRANDMA’S Finest” and the Kraft Foods trademark "GRAND’MERE”, since in addition to the phonetic similarity the identical meaning of the word "Grandmother” occurred.43
It was assumed here that the meaning of the English "Grandma” is familiar to the relevant French target public. In addition, both trademarks would depict a white-haired lady with glasses, which also would amount to a similarity.
Likewise, likelihood of confusion was affirmed for the word and figurative marks "Sama” and "Samia”, particularly since both words are Arabic female names.44
As already in the word mark, likelihood of confusion also exists in the word and figurative mark "NATURALIA INGREDIENTS” and the word mark "NATURALIA”.45
The grapes added as an image did not change the fact that the attention is primarily directed at the word elements. Even more than in the case of the word mark here the component "Ingredients” takes a backseat and is thus only an accessory to the central word "Naturalia”.
In particular, due to a phonetic similarity, likelihood of confusion between the word and figurative mark “Marco” and the Aldi trademark "MARKUS” was affirmed.46
Aldi’s application "Gourmet” was denied registration due to likelihood of confusion with an earlier Spanish trademark "Gourmet” (on a red background).47
And this despite the existing weak distinctive character of the term "Gourmet”.
In the case of "TIC TAC” versus "TICTAC nens” the similarity of the signs was affirmed, yet due to the dissimilar goods the OHIM denied likelihood of confusion.48
This even assuming a reputation of "TIC TAC” on the part of the public.
In the case of the August Storck trademark "MERCI” and the word and figurative mark "MERCI DANK U DANKE” likelihood of confusion was assumed not least due to the awareness of the trademark "Merci”.49
In addition, the word mark is fully contained visually in the figurative trademark and the relevant public in Germany and Benelux would merely see a repetition of the first word "Merci" in another language in the addition of "DANK U DANKE” [Thank you].
Ehrmann was able to sustain its position with its figurative trademark of a dinosaur, which holds a glass of milk in its hands, against an application, which depicts a similar dinosaur next to the word component "Dino”. Likelihood of confusion was affirmed.50
Likewise, likelihood of confusion was affirmed in the case of the Spanish Cadbury trademark "GUMMY” and the Kaufland trademark application "GUMMY BEARS”.51
The Board of Appeal of the EU Trade Mark Office assumed here that the relevant Spanish consumer did not know the word "Gummy” and therefore a standard distinctive character had to be assumed. Due to the dominant character of the word "real" in the word and figurative marks "real,- QUALITY” and "REAL HANDCOOKED” likelihood of confusion was assumed.52
Both times this word element was written significantly larger than the respective additions "Quality” or "Handcooked". In addition, the word in each case was at the beginning and thus would attract the attention of the consumer to itself.
Since the consumer would place greater attention on the beginning of the word than on the end of the word, likelihood of confusion was assumed between the word mark "DeliDay” and the French word and figurative mark "deli‘ MAX”.53
In addition, the word part "Deli” would not be a descriptive element, since the relevant French target public would not understand this as an abbreviation of the word "délicieux”.
In the case of the Dallmayr trademark "CAPSA” and the word and figurative mark "CUPSY” likelihood of confusion was denied due to the lack of similarity of the signs.54
Likelihood of confusion between the word and figurative mark "JELLYSHOT” and the Nestlé trademark "JELLYTOTS” was denied in particular due to the descriptive meaning of the common component "Jelly”.55
As already in the case of the word mark, likelihood of confusion was denied for the word and figurative mark "steviola” with the Haribo trademark "Stevi-Cola”.56
The argument was the low degree of distinctive character of the earlier trademark due to the reference to the sweetener "Stevia” as well as the conceptual and graphical differences of the trademarks.
Also, likelihood of confusion was denied in the case of the word and figurative marks "Kelly’s” and "Quely”.57
Although OHIM’s Board of Appeal assumed a strong phonetic similarity, in its view the visual difference prevailed, since the relevant target public would not as a rule order the snacks and chocolate products orally, but rather would find the products on the shelves while shopping, which is why a greater focus should be placed on the visual elements. The German Federal Patent Court denied the similarity of signs and thus likelihood of confusion due to numerous and noticeable differences of the star depictions. It stressed that in particular no conceptual similarity is given. Solely the possibility that in two figuratively different illustrations the same motif is recognized and the trademarks could accordingly be designated, is not yet sufficient.582.3. Conflicts with trademarks acquired by use
A Russian confectionery group, which is extremely well-known in Russia with its product "MACKA", is attempting to defend itself against a trademark application "MACKA" of a competitor. Since the Russian group has no trademark rights to "MACKA" in Europe, the opposition was based on a trademark acquired solely through use. This is in fact possible, insofar as the sign has acquired secondary meaning as a trademark within the relevant target public. The trade- mark acquired by use would be the package of "MACKA" available on the German market. In determining whether a sign has been established solely by its use on the market, a special emphasis is placed on the determination of the relevant target public. For the product "MACKA" the General Court of the European Union states that it must be examined whether the relevant target public does not comprise the entirety of average Germans, but rather is limited to Russian speaking consumers in Germany.59
That the relevant goods were primarily sold in stores, which would be frequented by Russian speaking consumers and in addition the lettering on the package is Cyrillic, speaks in favor of this view. The Board of Appeal of the EU Trade Mark Office had failed to conduct this examination. Therefore, the case has now been remanded. The Board of Appeal must now first examine, whether (1) the target public may be limited to Russian speaking consumers in Germany, and (2) whether a secondary meaning is given in this area.
One dispute dealt with the registration of a figurative trademark, which depicts a yogurt bowl with small pieces and a spoon. The opposition was also based here on a trademark acquired solely through use. A prerequisite for this is that the sign has acquired secondary meaning within the relevant target public as a trademark. The trademark acquired by use is a package with the mark "BeBe" and additional indications as well as the illustration of a yogurt bowl with small pieces and a spoon. Ultimately the Board of Appeal of the EU Trade Mark Office did not examine, whether the package of the opponent has actually obtained trademark protection solely though an extensive use. Rather, the Board stated that even with the assumption of a secondary meaning, the signs would not be confusingly similar. For the contested trademark on the package (bowl with yogurt) would be used merely as an accessory to the actual trademark and thus has an only descriptive and decorative character.60
The dispute about the "Vichy" pattern was triggered by infringement proceedings based on an EU figurative trademark, which shows the "Vichy" pattern. Andros, the owner of the "Vichy" trademark, filed the action in France for an injunction against the use of the Vichy pattern on lids for marmalade jars against Gruppo Fini. The lawsuit was rejected by the court in France, since a similarity of signs was denied. Gruppo Fini has launched a counter-attack and despite its victory in France has filed an application for invalidation of the European figurative trademark, which depicts the "Vichy" pattern. The application was based on a trademark acquired solely through use, which shows a marmalade jar with a lid in the "Vichy" pattern. Therefore, the sign was the subject matter of the infringement proceedings in France. OHIM’s Board of Appeal ultimately did not decide as to whether the marmalade jar has actually attained secondary meaning due to an extensive use and thus could function as a prior right. Instead the Board declared that even with the assumption of a trademark acquired by use the latter would not be confusingly similar to the figurative trademark "Vichy" pattern. Thus, the figurative trademark was not canceled.61
2.4 Conflicts with three-dimensional trademarks
Berlin Regional Court assumed likelihood of confusion in the case of the ice cream of Nuna World (illustration on the left), since the ice cream of the respondent also consisted of several squares strung together with a pyramidal curvature. In this connection a at least normal distinctiveness was attested to the sign of the applicant, since the design deviates substantially from those usual ice cream shapes.62
The Schogetten bar was successfully defended. Ludwig Schokolade has distributed a chocolate bar since 1962 in the typical rectangular 100g package, however, in 18 individual pieces. Ludwig Schokolade is both the owner of a trademark in the shape of the individual chocolate piece, as well as of a trademark for the bar consisting of 18 pieces. Cologne Higher Regional Court prohibited a competitor from distributing a 100 g bar, consisting of 18 individual pieces, which are confusingly similar to the Schogetten piece, as well as from advertising the chocolate individual pieces in Germany. The fact that in the case of the Schogetten piece, a star is located on the surface is irrelevant, since the scope of protection of the trademark is related to the three-dimensional shape of the chocolate piece as such.63
2.5 Conflicts in product packaging
Ferrero was able to successfully defend itself against the registration of a design, which includes a transparent box with colorful sugarcoated tablets. OHIM’s Board of Appeal affirmed likelihood of confusion with the Ferrero trademark, which depicts the typical "Tic Tac Box”.64
The affixing of a label with the mark "MIK MAKI" would not be sufficient to eliminate likelihood of confusion, since this does not dominate the overall impression of the design.
3. Proof of genuine use
Upon expiry of a certain period, marks can only be enforced if they are genuinely used. Upon the applicant's request, the holder of an older mark must provide proof that the mark is being genuinely used or that there are justified grounds for its lack of use.
The Cancellation Division of OHIM deemed the use of the word mark "CANDYLAND" to be proven despite optical changes ("CANDY" and "LAND" were written in two lines, the whole was colored and surrounded by a dirigible), since the public would still recognize the word mark therein.65
For similar reasons the General Court of the European Union recognized a use of the word mark "Drinkfit" in modified form, namely while the words "Drink" and "fit" are arranged one below the other and are surrounded by a decorative semicircular label, as sufficient to preserve the right.66
As already in the decision "WALZERTRAUM"67
the Board of Appeal of the EU Trade Mark Office has now also rejected genuine use of the trademark "CONSTANZE”.68
Reber submitted a number of packages to establish proof of use. One box contained a number of different chocolates, among others, one with the inscription "Constanze-Kugel”. The Board of Appeal could not regard this box with mixed balls as a proof of use. For on the front side the trademark "Constanze" did not appear at all, but rather only the own mark "Reber”. Only on the reverse side of the package, which showed a representation of the different chocolates, did one come across the reference "Constanze-Kugel”, which was deemed as insufficient. Solely the package depicted here with the inscription "Constanze Mozart Kugeln" was recognized as use of the trademark "Constanze." Reber submitted too little documentation for this package, which could classify the use as genuine, however. Only four invoices were submitted, which in a time period of eight months documented a sales volume of only 19.8 kg to four customers in Germany with a value of 428.10 EUR. The Board of Appeal emphasized that not every use could be recognized as trademark use sufficient to preserve the right. Since here trademark protection for the entire EU had been claimed for the broad generic term "chocolate products" – and not only for chocolates – the small scale of the use could not be recognized as sufficient to preserve the right.
With regard to the requirements of proof of use, which is sufficient to preserve the right, the list of goods should also name the specific products and in case of doubt proof of use should also only be established for this specific product.
In the case of the word mark "EXPRESS YOURSELF" OHIM’s Board of Appeal affirmed a use despite a graphic design, since the added vertical line and the bold type of some letters are not dominant or characteristic elements.69
A use of the word "real,-" with the addition "QUALITY" was recognized as sufficient to preserve the right of the word and figurative mark "real,-". Ultimately, however, the sign was canceled for a part of the products, since no documentation of use was submitted for all registered products.70
No case of a genuine use existed in the case of "Sabores de Navarra”.71
The originally registered word and figurative mark contained the addition "La Sabiduria del Sabor" (= wisdom of taste). As a result of the omission of this addition, the trademark was changed substantially in relation to its registered form, since "Sabores de Navarra" (taste of Navarra) is merely descriptive.
Likewise in the case of the word and figurative mark "Frankonia quadro" no genuine use could be proven.72 This was justified by the fact that the registered trademark would be dominated by the word "Frankonia”. This word, however, does not exist at all on the package and it can scarcely be seen where the word "Quadro" dominates.
OHIM-Board of Appeal (BoA), 26.02.2015, R 1166/2014-1 – Alpenbauer2
OHIM-BoA 23.07.2015, R 403/2014-1 – CORN POPS.3
OHIM-BoA, 04.06.2015, R 3277/2014-2 – EXTRA EASY4
OHIM-BoA, 28.05.2015, R 1892/2014-2 – EASYPIZZA.5
OHIM-BoA, 12.01.2015, R 1242/2014-1 – X-TREME SOUR.6
GC, 11.12.2014, T-712/13 – REHABILITATE.7
OHIM-BoA, 21.11.2014, R 1718/2014-1 – GOLDEN GREEN.8
OHIM Cancellation Division, 08/27/2015, 9888 C – ITALISSIMO.9
GC, 25.09.2015, T-366/14 – 2good.10
OHIM-BoA, 31.07.2015, R 3129/2014-2 – HEALTHY EXTRA.11
Federal Patent Court, 12.05.2015, 26 W (pat) 35/13 – BE HAPPY; GC, 30.04.2015, T-707/13 and T-709/13 – BE HAPPY.12
OHIM-BoA, 03.07.2015, R 205/2015-5 – I’M SLIMMING.13
OHIM-BoA, 27.03.2015, R 2271/2013-4 – Kornspitz. So schmeckt Österreich!.14
OHIM-BoA, 16.03.2015, R 2430/2014-4 – MAKE SOMETHING BEAUTIFUL.15
OHIM-BoA, 09/23/2015, R 94/2015-1 – pure FINE SELECTION.16
OHIM-BoA, 06/03/2015, R 3183/2014-4 – Clean Food.17
OHIM-BoA, 05/21/2015, R 2281/2014-1 – HARMONY FOR BODY & SOUL Detox & Slim; R 2306/2014-1 – HARMONY FOR BODY & SOUL Purify & Slim; R 2315/2014-1 – HARMONY FOR BODY & SOUL Fit & Slim.18
OHIM-BoA, 03/27/2015, R 2270/2013-4 – The Kornspitz Company.19
OHIM-BoA, 03/24/2015, R 2501/2014-5 – LA MEXICANA QUALITY FOODS.20
OHIM-BoA, 03/20/2015, R 2858/2014-5 – CHUAO CHOCOLATIER.21
Federal Patent Court, 11.03.2015, 29 W (pat) 511/13 – Schloss Shop Heidelberg.22
OHIM-BoA, 31.10.2014, R 1756/2014-4 – Salzburg Patisserie.23
OHIM-BoA, 12.01.2015, R 713/2014-4 – SELECTION.24
GC, 12/17/2014, T-344/14 – Deluxe.25
OHIM-BoA, 11/26/2014, R 1749/2014-4 – Aus Guten das Beste seit 1876.26
“Common Communication on the Common Practice of Distinctive character – Figurative marks containing descriptive / non-distinctive words” of 02.10.2015, www.dpma.de/docs/marke/en-cp3cc.pdf
ECJ, 09/16/2015, C-215/14 – Kit Kat.28
GC, 10/07/2015, T-656/13, T-242/14, T-243/14, T-244/14.29
GC, 06/29/2015, T- 618/14.30
OHIM-BoA, 09/08/2014, R 644/2014-5.31
OHIM Cancellation Division, 23.02.2015, 9654 C.32
OHIM-BoA, 07/06/2015, R 3086/2014-2 – IBIS FRESH.33
OHIM-BoA, 06/16/2015, R 1158/2014-2 – Natür-bal.34
OHIM-BoA, 13.05.2015, R 729/2014-4 – LISAN.35
OHIM-BoA, 30.03.2015, R 1062/2014-2 – NATURALIA INGREDIENTS.36
OHIM-BoA, 11.12.2014, R 2301/2013-1 and R207/2014-1 – STYX.37
OHIM Cancellation Division, 07.10.2014, 3153 C – FRUITINI.38
OHIM-BoA, 01.10.2014, R 1374/2013-4 – TinTag.39
OHIM-BoA, 02.12.2014, R 54/2014-1 – STEVIOLA.40
OHIM-BoA, 13.11. 2014, R 608/2014-1 – YOGURTISSIMO.41
OHIM-BoA, 13.03.2015, R 830/2014-5 – Chiqqo.42
OHIM-BoA, 24.09.2015, R 1902/2014-4 – TicTacDent – THE EDUCATIONAL DENTAL KIT.43
OHIM-BoA, 11.06.2015, R 1936/2014-1, Grandma’s Finest.44
OHIM-BoA, 18.05.2015, R 606/2014-2 – Sama.45
OHIM-BoA, 24.03.2015, R 1386/2014-2 – NATURALIA INGREDIENTS.46
OHIM-BoA, 16.03.2015, R 2487/2013-4 – Marco.47
OHIM-BoA, 24.02.2015, R 314/2014-4 – Gourmet.48
OHIM-BoA 12.02.2015, R 1983/2013-4 – TIC-TAC-nens.49
OHIM-BoA, 13.11.2014, R 549/2014-4 – MERCI DANK U DANKE.50
OHIM-BoA 23.10.2014, R 2012/2013-5.51
OHIM-BoA, 17.10.2014, R 2065/2013-5 – GUMMY BEARS.52
OHIM-BoA, 06.10.2014, R 842/2013-4 – REAL HANDCOOKED.53
OHIM-BoA, 22.08.2014, R 1412/2013-4 and R 1641/2013-4 – DeliDay.54
OHIM Cancellation Division, 01.10.2015, 9561 C – CUPSY.55
OHIM-BoA, 16.03.2015, R 477/2014-4 – JELLYSHOT.56
OHIM-BoA, 02.12.2014, R 34/2014-1 – steviola.57
OHIM-BoA, 05.09.2014, R 2251/2013-1 – Kelly’s.58
Federal Patent Court, 09/04/2014, 28 W (pat) 102/12.59
GC, 28.10.2015, T-96/13 – MACKA.60
OHIM-BoA, 26.05.2015, R 2295/2014-4 – Bowl with yogurt and spoon.61
OHIM-BoA, 23.09.2014, R 931/2013-4.62
Berlin Regional Court, 09.06.2015, 16 O 192/63
Cologne Higher Regional Court, 15.08.2014, 6 U 9/14 – Schokoladenstück Baronetta.64
OHIM-BoA, 08.09.2015, R 1150/2012-3.65
OHIM Cancellation Division, 27.07.2015, 9584 C – CANDYLAND.66
GC, 12.12.2014, T-105/13 – TrinkFix.67
ECJ, 17.07.2014, C 141/13 P – Walzer Traum; see also Confectionery Industry Special Year in Review 2014, p. 11.68
OHIM-BoA, 30.04.2015, R 1994/2013-1 – Fournils de Constance.69
OHIM Cancellation Division, 04/13/2015, 9149 C – EXPRESS YOURSELF.70
OHIM-BoA, 03/16/2015, R 2285/2013-4 – REAL.71
GC, Urt. v. 21.01.2015, T-46/13 – Kit El Sabor de Navarra.72
OHIM-BoA, 12/12/2014, R 535/2014-2 – FRANCONIA QUADRO.