On 24 September 2025, the EUIPO Board of Appeal issued an interesting decision regarding the ground of opposition based on the earlier mark’s reputation (Article 8(5) EUTMR). For the following signs, the EUIPO upheld the opposition:
The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled that one must be strict when comparing a word mark with a three-dimensional mark in order to prevent right owners from monopolizing product shapes by obtaining word mark protection. The BGH concludes that Lindt and Sprüngli AG is not infringing Haribo’s trade mark rights when selling a seated golden chocolate teddy bear with a red ribbon. (Case I ZR 105/14, Judgement of 23 September 2015)Press here to read our earlier blog post about the decision from the Higher Regional Court of Cologne.
The European General Court (EGC) rules that a word with laudatory connotations may be registered as a trade mark if it does not specifically describe the goods and services and not all of its meanings are exclusively laudatory. (Judgement: T-611/13 of 15 July 2015)
The German Federal Court of Justice ruled on two aspects of trade mark law in its recent decision. The conclusion of the Court was, firstly, that a mark which is registered in black and white is not identical with a mark in colour unless the difference is insignificant. Secondly, the production of plaques consisting merely of a car producer’s trade mark falls within the monopoly granted by the exclusivity right of the trade mark proprietor. (Judgement: I Z 153/14 of 12 March 2015)
The Situation Report on Counterfeiting in the European Union (EU), prepared by Europol and OHIM through the European Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights is a first try to capture the complex reality of counterfeiting in the EU in 2015. 1. IntroductionWeiterlesen über Counterfeiting Report 2015
