The Regional Court Berlin decided that companies cannot choose the language of their General Terms and Conditions (GTCs) by themselves (Judgment dated 9 May 2014; Case No.: 15 O 44/13) Background of the Case and Subject Matter WhatsApp Inc. is the owner of the famous WhatsApp Messenger. This is a cross-platform mobile messaging app which allows you to exchange messages without having to pay anything. Their website can be called in over thirty languages, one of them is German. However, the GTCs are always only available in English. The Federation of German Consumer Organization requested that WhatsApp Inc. must offer the GTCs in German to fulfill their information duties. Decision The Regional Court Berlin decided that every company has to offer a reasonable option for the consumer to take note of the GTCs. Not everybody in Germany has the capability to understand written GTCs in English. Therefore, the consumers cannot really take note of them and understand the content. As a result of that the GTCs of companies always have to be in German if they offer goods and services in Germany. Accordingly, WhatsApp Inc. has to offer a German translation of their GTCs in the future.    

The world’s leading independent brand valuation and strategy consultancy Brand Finance just published the Global Brand 500 report. Brand Finance puts thousands of the world’s biggest brands to the Global Brand Test every year, evaluating which are the most powerful and most valuable Brands in the World. The most valuable brands in the world Below you can see the 10 most valuable brands in the world. Apple maintained its number on position even if critics complained that Apple missed the opportunity to exploit the explosive growth of the smartphone market in developing economies by the high price of the iPhone (iPhone 6 starting with 649,00 US-Dollar). Apple is followed by Samsung, which is the most valuable brand from Asia with a brand value of 81,716 billion US Dollars. The German BMW brand is the most valuable brand in Europe, but, with a value of 33,079 US Dollar it is just ranked 17.  [[{"type":"media","fid":"4517","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image size-medium wp-image-2141 aligncenter","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"300","height":"189"}}]] The Brands with the highest Brand Value Change 2014 -2015 As you can see below, the fastest growth rates have been archived by upcoming tech brands. Twitter’s brand value has by far the most increase with 185% to 4.4 US Dollars. But, also the value of Facebook increased with 146% to over 24 billion US Dollars. The Facebook community gained 200 million new users, as a result it grew to 1,4 billion users in 2014. Especially Chinese tech brands count to the winners of the Global Brand Test in 2015. The Chinese web services company Baidu rapidly increased by 161% between 2014 and 2015. Last year it was just ranked at 264, but its current 13,3 billion US Dollar brand value puts it at rank 86. Baidu offers many services, including a Chinese language-search engine for websites, audio files, and images. It invests heavily in a range of mobile apps and location based services such as Baidu Connect which helps smaller business engage with customers more effectively. Also the Alibaba Group has a significant increase of 90% and the Alibaba Brand has a value of 11,4 billion US Dollars. By comparison, Amazon just increased 24%. But the monolithic Amazon brand is clearly more valuable with a brand value of 56 billion US Dollars. The reason for this is, among others, the multi brand strategy of the Alibaba Group. [[{"type":"media","fid":"4518","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image size-medium wp-image-2142 aligncenter","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"300","height":"200"}}]] The most powerful brands in the world Below you can see the most powerful brands in the world. In order to determine the power of a brand “Brand Finance” developed the Brand Strength Index (BSI). Therefore, Brand Finance analyses the marketing investment, brand equity and finally the impact of those on business performance. Following this analysis, each brand is assigned a BSI score out of 100, which is fed into the brand value calculation. Based on the score, each brand in the league table is assigned a rating between AAA+ and D in a format similar to a credit rating. AAA+ brands are exceptionally strong and well managed while a failing brand would be assigned a D grade. Lego is the world’s most powerful brand. Lego is followed by the German leading consultancy organization PWC and the Red Bull brand of the Austrian company Red Bull GmbH. [[{"type":"media","fid":"4519","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image size-medium wp-image-2143 aligncenter","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"300","height":"160"}}]] For more detailed information and other statistics please click here http://www.brandfinance.com/images/upload/brand_finance_global_500_2015.pdf

The International Trademark Association (INTA), headquartered in New York City, is a global association of trademark owners and professionals dedicated to supporting trademarks and related intellectual property in order to protect consumers and to promote fair and effective commerce. [[{"type":"media","fid":"4516","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2137 aligncenter","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"412","height":"231"}}]] For INTA‘s 137th Annual Meeting from 2- 6 May 2015 in San Diego, California, more than 9,500 trademark professionals from all over the world are expected. And also the lawyers of LexDellmeier are looking forward to five days of educational sessions, brand strategy meetings and business development opportunities! If you are interested watch the 2015 Annual Meeting Co-Chairs, Joshua Burke and Mario Soerensen Garcia who share their vision for this year’s meeting: [embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXMWzZBanWg[/embed]

[[{"type":"media","fid":"4515","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2134 alignright","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"228","height":"152"}}]] At the 21 April 2015 the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council have reached in so-called "trilogue discussions" provisional political agreement. The pillars of the trademark reform are:

• Significant reductions of the fees for European Union trademarks covering all 28 Member States. The agreed changes will lead to savings of up to 37%, in particular for businesses that seek protection of their registered European Union trademarks beyond an initial period of 10 years;

• Streamlined, more efficient and harmonized registration procedures across all trade mark offices in the EU. Faster and less burdensome procedures will be a great improvement for successfully growing companies, mainly SMEs, which roll out their business beyond one Member State and seek trade mark protection in front of multiple national administrations;

• Strengthened means to fight against counterfeits in particular of goods in transit through the EU’s territory. This will prevent abuse of the EU as a distribution hub for illegal fake goods to world-wide destinations;

• Modernized rules and increased legal certainty by adapting trade mark rules to the modern business environment and clarifying trade mark rights and their limitations.

To read more about the EU Trademark Reform Package: click here

The German Federal Court of Justice decided that the holder of an older trademark is allowed to demand for the cancellation of a registered trademark which is just a parody of their established trademark (Judgment dated 2 April 2015; Case No.: I ZR 59/13). Background of the Case and Subject Matter In 2006 the defendant - a T-shirt designer from Hamburg - registered the word/device mark No. 30567514 “Pudel” („ poodle“) in combination with the image of a “leaping poodle” (see right below) at the German Patent and Trademark office (GPTO). The plaintiff - the famous manufacturer of sports equipment, Puma SE, is the owner of the German word/device mark No. 954 023, consisting of the word “Puma” and the image of a “leaping wild puma” since 1977. The plaintiff sought the cancellation of the defendant’s trademark because Puma SE is of the opinion that the defendant is infringing their trademark rights. The District Court of Hamburg sentenced the defendant to cancel his trademark (Judgment dated 10 February 2009; Case No.: 312 O 394/08). The Higher Regional Court rejected the appeal (Judgment dated 7 March 2013; Case No.: 5 U 39/09). [[{"type":"media","fid":"4064","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2127 alignleft","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"309","height":"169"}}]]  [[{"type":"media","fid":"4063","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2126 alignleft","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"255","height":"170"}}]] Decision of the German Federal Court of Justice The German Federal Court of Justice decided that the parody of an established trademark cannot be registered as a separate brand. First of all the German Federal Court of Justice pointed out that the competing signs are not similar enough to assume a likelihood of confusion. But, the defendant takes advantage of the distinctive character and the repute of the older “Puma” trademark. For this reason, the plaintiff has the right to demand the cancellation of the “Pudel” trademark. Also, the German Federal Court of Justice clarified that the plaintiff’s right in its long-established trademark in such case must be valued higher than the freedom of speech or the artistic freedom of the defendant, laid down in the German constitution. Link: Please note that a decision has been announced, however, the written decision not published yet. This will take a few more weeks. The following link refers to the Court's press release: http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&Datum=Aktuell&nr=70695&linked=pm

[[{"type":"media","fid":"4511","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2118 alignright","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"245","height":"167"}}]] The Hague Agreement is an international registration system which offers the possibility of obtaining protection for industrial designs in a number of States and/or intergovernmental organizations by means of a single international application filed with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Introduction The Hague Agreement is consist of four international treaties:

• Hague Agreement of November 6, 1925
• The London Act of June 2, 1934
• The Hague Act of November 28, 1960
• The Geneva Act of July 2, 1999

The original version of the Agreement and the London Act are frozen. The 1999 and the 1960 Acts of the Hague Agreement are autonomous and totally independent of each other. Therefore, every country can become a party to only the Hague Act, only the Geneva Act, or both. If a country signs up to only one of the Acts, then applicants from that country can consequently only use the Hague system to obtain protection for their designs in other countries which are signed up to the same Act. For example, the European Union has only signed the Geneva Act. Therefore, all applicants from the European Union which qualify to use the Hague system can only get protection in countries which have also signed up to the Geneva Act or to the Hague and the Geneva Act. Currently (Status: 15 April 2015) there are 62 Contracting Parties which are members of one or both Acts. Recently, the United States and Japan, as two of the biggest economies in the word, have jointed the Hague System, which is a high enrichment for the system. WIPO is expecting that the accession of the United States and Japan will encourage other countries to join the system. To find out more watch the video. [embed]http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZjHltCMgSM[/embed] Qualification to use the Hague system To be entitled to file an application, an applicant must fulfill the following criteria:[[{"type":"media","fid":"4512","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2119 alignright","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"184","height":"187"}}]]

• The applicant must be a national of a Contracting Party or a Member State of an intergovernmental organization which is a Contracting Party
• or have a domicile in the territory of a Contracting Party
• or have a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the territory of a Contracting Party.
• only under the Geneva Act, an international application may be filed on the basis of habitual residence in a Contracting Party

Persons, who are not qualified to use the Hague system, are only able to file an application at the national level. Contents of the Application[[{"type":"media","fid":"4513","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2120 alignright","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"271","height":"207"}}]] The international application must be filed in English, French or Spanish on the official form provided by WIPO or with the electronic filing interface available on the WIPO website. The application has to contain a reproduction of the industrial designs and a designation of the Contracting Parties where protection is required. An international application may include up to 100 different designs, but, they have to belong to the same class of the Locarno Classification. The applicant may request that publication of the designs be deferred for a period which cannot exceed 12 months (under the 1960 Act) or 30 months (under the 1999 Act) from the filing date or, where priority is claimed, from the priority date. Fees An international application is subject to the payment of a basic fee; a publication fee, and for each designated Contracting Party, either a standard fee or an individual fee. A schedule of fees, as well as an automatic fee calculator, is available: here (www.wipo.int/hague/en/fees). Examination and registration procedure[[{"type":"media","fid":"4514","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image size-medium wp-image-2121 alignright","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"300","height":"147"}}]] WIPO examines the formal requirements of the application, for example, the quality of the reproductions of the industrial designs and the payment of the required fees. WIPO informs the applicant immediately if there are any faults. Then, the applicant has the chance to correct the irregularities within three months. After the examination WIPO is recording the design in the International Register and publish it in the International Designs Bulletin. It must be stressed that the International Bureau of WIPO does not examine any substantive ground of refusal that means neither if is in fact new nor if it has individual character. After the registration the international protection of the design is valid for five years. It can be renewed for an additional period of five years, in respect of each designated Contracting Party, up to the expiry of the total term of protection allowed by those Contracting Parties respective laws.

[[{"type":"media","fid":"4509","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2097 alignright","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"112","height":"148"}}]] In February 2015 the Brand Finance Banking 500 ranking was published in “The Banker” magazine. This annual ranking of the 500 most valuable brands in the banking business is created by Brand Finance. Brand value of banks worldwide Below is an extract of the 2014 annual worldwide ranking about the trademark value of banks. Because of the high participation of 500 banks, the ranking is quite significant. Wells Fargo maintained its No. 1 position with a brand value of approximately 35 billion US- Dollars in 2015. Wells Fargo is followed by the Chinese ICBC and the British HSBC. [[{"type":"media","fid":"4508","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image size-medium wp-image-2096 aligncenter","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"300","height":"207"}}]] As you can see below, America’s banks remain the most valuable in the world. 60 American bank brands are featured in the global top 500, with a cumulative brand value of 201 billion US- Dollars. But, of interest is that the cumulative brand value of Chinese banks has increased by 29%. They now make up 15% of the brand value of the Banking 500. On the other hand, European banks lost significant value between 2014 and 2015. [[{"type":"media","fid":"4510","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image size-medium wp-image-2098 aligncenter","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"249","height":"300"}}]]

Every April 26 - the day on which the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) Convention came into force in 1970 - the WIPO celebrates the World Intellectual Property Day to promote discussions about the importance and role of intellectual property. The WIPO’s member states designated this day with the aim of increasing the general understanding of intellectual property, including trademarks, designs, patents, utility models etc. Each year, a special topic and focus is picked. [[{"type":"media","fid":"4050","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image aligncenter size-full wp-image-2090","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"600","height":"340"}}]] The 2015 World IP Day Theme This year’s World Intellectual Property Day 2015 focuses on the theme: “Get up, stand up. For music.”  The music industry gives work to thousands of creative people like singers, songwriters, musicians and publishers. The technologies through which we access music has changed dramatically in the last years. Downloading or streaming is getting more and more important, but, these new techniques are often abused by people who do not want to pay for the music they are listening to. Therefore, the protection of IP Rights in the music business is as important as never before. Events on the World IP Day 2015 Accordingly, a lot of events for interested people are planned all over the world. In Germany, for example, the German Patent and Trade Mark Office (GPTO) is giving a 3-hour workshop to small and medium-sized enterprises and start-ups on the most important aspects of the protection of intellectual property in companies on 20 April 2015, in Berlin. And, in Munich, the GPTO is giving a free introductory workshop to small and medium-sized enterprises and start-ups at the Munich Chamber of Commerce on the most important aspects of the protection of intellectual property in companies on 5 May 2015. Click here to find out what events are planned in your country on World IP Day. Link: https://www.google.com/maps/d/view?mid=zmg8fySYF2hA.kfUOJiMS6mHo To get more information click here: http://www.wipo.int/ip-outreach/en/ipday/

We invite all our readers come to our seminar “IP Company and Value” on 15 June 2015 in Munich, Germany. Since the foundation of our law firm in 2009, we focus on our client’s intellectual property needs - from a legal, but, also from a business perspective. On 15 June 2015 we will hold an interesting and exiting seminar about “IP and Company Value” in German.  Our experienced lawyers Mrs. Alexandra Dellmeier and Mrs. Hannah Eckermann and the management consultant, Mr. Johannes Spannagl, will give lectures about the creation, evaluation and defense of intellectual property rights. The seminar will be especially interesting for start-ups as well as medium-sized and large companies who want to know the value of and enforce their IP rights. We are looking forward to seeing some of you at our seminar. [[{"type":"media","fid":"4507","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image aligncenter size-full wp-image-2086","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"459","height":"100"}}]] To download the flyer in German and to apply - click here: http://lexdellmeier.com/downloads/seminarflyer-lexdellmeier-2015.pdf

The European General Court (EGC) decided that the Community Trademark (CTM) VOODOO is not descriptive because the word “VOODOO” will just be seen as a fantasy term with a vague reference to some occult practices by the average consumer (Judgment dated 18 November 2014; Case No.: T‑50/13). Background of the Case and Subject Matter On 15 April 2007, the applicant filed for a CTM at the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) for the word mark “VOODOO” for clothing. On 10 March 2010 the CTM was registered under the number 5832464. Afterwards, in March 2010, the intervener, Think Schuhwerk GmbH, applied for a declaration that the contested trademark is invalid at OHIM. In its application for a declaration of invalidity the intervener alleged that the contested trademark is descriptive and lacks any distinctive character because the word mark “VOODOO” just describes a specific style of clothing or footwear which is used in the Voodoo religion. Also, the intervener based its declaration on the assumption that the applicant filed its application in bad faith. The Cancellation Division rejected the request for declaration of invalidity. The Board of Appeal (BoA) upheld this decision in second instance. Therefore, the Think Schuhwerk GmbH appealed further to the EGC. [[{"type":"media","fid":"4505","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image aligncenter size-full wp-image-2076","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"600","height":"375"}}]] Decision of the Court The European General Court (EGC) upheld the decision of the BoA. First, the court pointed out, that the evidence submitted by the applicant does not show that it is reasonable to believe that the mark”VOODOO” will actually be recognized by the relevant consumer as a description for the goods. The relevant public by reference to which the likelihood of confusion must be assessed is composed of average consumers in the EU. This average consumer may associate occult practices and black magic with Voodoo Dolls (see above) which originally come from Haiti or Africa with the word “VOODOO”. But, none of the evidence submitted by the intervener demonstrates that for these practices special clothing is needed or that the actions are bound on predefined rituals, places or events and are only for special persons. As a result of that the EGC upheld the finding of the BoA that the word “VOODOO” will be seen as a fantasy term with a vague reference to some occult practices. Therefore, the trademark is not (directly) descriptive. The EGC also is not of the opinion that the applicant was in bad faith because he knew that the trademark was rejected at the 12 June 2007 by the German Patent and Trademark Office. The court refused this argument because a priority may be lawfully claimed from an application being the subsequent outcome of that application not registered. Finally, the EGC is also convinced that the applicant was not in bad faith because he circumvented the obligation of use of its prior CTM „VOODOO“ for class headings. The EGC is of the opinion, that the applicant applied for the second trademark for specific goods in relation to clothing with the intention to create clearness and preciseness regarding to the scope of protection and not in a fraudulent way.