The European General Court (EGC) dissmissed the appeal of the Swatch AG against the Community Trademark (CTM) application “SWATCHBALL“ by Panvision Europe Ltd (Judgment dated 19 May 2015; Case No.: T‑71/14). Background of the Case and Subject Matter On 24 December 2007, Panavision Europe Ltd filed an application for registration of a Community Trademark at the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM). The mark in respect of which registration was sought is the word mark “SWATCHBALL” for –among others – lighting and photographic equipment. The Community Trademark application was published in Community Trademarks Bulletin No 24/2008 of 16 June 2008. On 15 September 2008, the applicant, Swatch AG, filed a notice of opposition which was based on the following earlier marks: - The international word mark “SWATCH” (No: 469 696) and the Community trademark “Swatch” (No: 226 019) for - among others - “clocks and watches”. - The international word/device mark (left below) (No: 614 932; 506 123, 226 316) for – among others – watches and jewellery.

[[{"type":"media","fid":"4527","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image alignnone wp-image-2180","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"141","height":"46"}}]]       vs.       SWATCHBALL

Decisions of the previous instance On 13 January 2012, the Opposition Division rejected the opposition in its entirety. On 9 March 2012, the applicant filed a notice of appeal with OHIM against the decision of the Opposition Division. By decision of 11 November 2013, the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM (BoA) dismissed the applicant’s appeal. Firstly, the court was of the opinion that there is no likelihood of confusion as the goods and services at issue are dissimilar. Secondly, the court came to the conclusion, that the earlier marks may have a reputation in the French, German and Spanish markets for watches and clocks, but, the goods and services at issue are so different, that the mark applied for is unlikely to bring the earlier marks to the mind of the relevant public. Thirdly, the BoA found that the applicant had failed to prove that use of the mark applied for in relation to the goods and services covered by it could cause a dilution of the earlier marks through the dispersion of their identity and their hold upon the public mind or take unfair advantage of the reputation or distinctive character of the earlier trademarks. Decision of the EGC The EGC dismissed the appeal of the Swatch AG. The Court ruled, that three cumulative conditions must be met in order to create likelihood of confusion if goods and services of opposing trademarks are not similar: First, the respective marks must be similar or identical; secondly, the earlier mark must have a reputation; thirdly, there must be a risk that the use, without due cause, of the later mark could take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark. In the present case, the EGC acknowledged that the first and the second conditions were fulfilled: “SWATCHBALL” includes the whole of the reputational word mark “SWATCH”. However, with respect to the risks required by the third condition, those risks are based on the similarity of the trademarks and become real when the relevant public creates a link between the marks so that the later mark recalls the earlier one, without it being necessary for them to be confused. The EGC came to the result that such a link does not exist between “SWATCH“ and “SWATCHBALL“ because the goods and services protected by the respective marks were too different. The relevant public of “SWATCHBALL” is specialized in the field of lighting, optical, lighting and photographic equipment and other visual effects, whereas, the trademark “SWATCH” is addressed to the general public. Therefore, the opposing trademarks have different distribution channels and purposes and belong to separate market sectors, thus they are not in competition at all.

[[{"type":"media","fid":"4524","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image alignnone wp-image-2167 alignright","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"143","height":"122"}}]] The European General Court (EGC) decided that the decision of the BoA has to be annulled, but not altered   because it did not mention an earlier decision of a Community Trademark (CTM) court (Judgment dated 25 March 2015; Case No.: T‑378/13). Background of the Case and Subject Matter On 13 October 2009 Carolus C. BVBA filed an application for registration of a CTM at the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM). The trademark for which registration was sought for was the word mark “English Pink“ for - among others - fresh fruits. The application for a CTM was published in the CTM Bulletin No 2010/014 of 25 January 2010. On 20 April 2010, Apple and Pear Australia Ltd and Star Fruits Diffusion filed a notice of opposition which was based on the word mark “PINK LADY“ (CTM No. 2042679) for - among others – fresh fruits, especially apples and the Community word/device marks (CTMs No. 4186169 and 6335591 ) you can see below for the same goods. PINK LADY      &      [[{"type":"media","fid":"4526","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image alignnone size-full wp-image-2169","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"225","height":"94"}}]]      &        [[{"type":"media","fid":"4525","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image alignnone size-full wp-image-2168","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"138","height":"133"}}]]

vs.

English Pink

 

Decisions of the Previous Instance By decision of 27 May 2011 the Opposition Division rejected the opposition. On 7 June 2011 the trademark owners filed an appeal with OHIM against the decision of the Opposition Division. In 2012, before adopting the contested decision, the Board of Appeal (BoA) was informed about final judgment of the Belgian CTM Court Tribunal de Commerce de Bruxelles (TCB) cancelling the Benelux mark “ENGLISH PINK“ because of likelihood of confusion with the earlier “PINK LADY“ CTM and Benelux trademarks. The TCB found that the Benelux mark “ENGLISH PINK“ infringes the “PINK LADY“ marks and prohibited the other party from using the sign “PINK LADY“ within the EU. The TCB ruled that the “PINK LADY” CTMs enjoy a high degree of protection and that there is a significant likelihood of confusion between “PINK LADY” and “ENGLISH PINK”. By decision of 29 May 2013 the BoA dismissed the appeal. The court was of the opinion that the marks were not visually, conceptually or phonetically similar and therefore there is no likelihood of confusion. The BoA was also of the opinion that the opponents had failed to establish the reputation of their earlier word mark and had not shown that the public associated “PINK LADY” with them rather than with apples of that variety as produced by any other grower. In reaching its decision, the BoA only referred to the evidence before the Opposition Division. Decision of the Court The EGC annulled, but did not alter the decision of the BoA. First, the EGC came to the result that although the BoA had been duly informed numerous months before the adoption of its decision about the judgment of the TCB, it did not even mention it. According to the EGC, the submission of facts and evidence by the parties remains possible even after the expiry of the time-limits and OHIM is in no way prohibited from taking account facts which are submitted or produced at a later stage. Therefore, the judgment of the TCB was a relevant factual element to be taken into account in this case, especially, in view of the fact that there were essential common points between the elements at issue in the Belgian infringement proceedings and the opposition proceedings: - The parties to both sets of proceedings were identical. - The earlier word mark relied on in support of the infringement proceedings before the TCB was the same as that relied on in support of the opposition proceedings before OHIM. - This judgment was delivered by a CTM court which was established as part of the autonomous system that underlines the European Union's trademark regime. As a result, the EGC is of the opinion that the BoA did not assess all the relevant factual aspects of the case with the required diligence. This lack of diligence was such as to lead to annulment of the BoA’s decision. Finally, the EGC pointed out that the judgment of the TCB is not in itself sufficient to enable the EGC to alter the contested decision. When exercising its exclusive jurisdiction over registration of CTMs and when examining oppositions lodged against CTM applications, the Office is not bound by a decision of a CTM court delivered in an action for infringement. The unitary character of the CTM does not mean that the principle of res judicata precludes the departments of OHIM and, consequently, the European Union Courts, from examining the possible existence of a likelihood of confusion in the context of opposition proceedings concerning the registration of a new CTM, even though it is identical to a national mark which has been held by a CTM court to undermine the earlier CTM.

The European General Court (EGC) decided that the chequerboard pattern device mark of Louis Vuitton is not distinctibe and therefore has to be declared null and void  (Judgment dated 21 April 2015; Case No.: T‑360/12). Background of the Case and Subject Matter On 4 January 2008, the applicant, Louis Vuitton Malletier, filed a Community Trademark (CTM) application for a “chequerboard pattern”at the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) for bags and luggage (see below). On 21 November 2008 the applicant was granted registration of the abovementioned device mark under CTM No 6587851.

[[{"type":"media","fid":"4523","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image alignnone size-full wp-image-2162","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"186","height":"177"}}]]

On 28 September 2009, the intervener, Nanu-Nana Handelsgesellschaft mbH für Geschenkartikel & Co. KG, a German company, filed an application for a declaration of invalidity relating to all of the goods protected by the registration of the CTM. That application was based on the fact that the contested trademark is descriptive and devoid of any distinctive character, that it has become customary in the current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade, that it consisted exclusively of the shape which gives substantial value to the goods and that it was contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality. The intervener also claimed that the applicant had acted in bad faith when filing the application for the trademark. By decision of 11 July 2011 the Cancellation Division confirmed the invalidity. The Cancellation Division held that the CTM consisted of a chequerboard pattern with a weft and warp structure intended to be applied to the surface of the goods in question. It went on to hold that that pattern was one of the most basic patterns used as a decorative element, and as such the relevant public would see it as merely a decorative feature and not as an indication of the origin of the goods in question and that, in any event, the contested trademark did not depart significantly from the norms or customs of the sector. In addition, it considered that the documents submitted by the proprietor of the CTM did not prove that, at the date of filing or after its registration, the CTM had acquired distinctive character through the use which had been made of it in at least 8 of the 27 Member States of the European Union (EU). The Cancellation Division concluded that that lack of evidence as regards those States was sufficient to find that the applicant had not established that distinctive character had been acquired through use. On 9 September 2011 the applicant filed a notice of appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division. By decision of 16 May 2012, the First Board of Appeal (BoA) of OHIM upheld the decision of the Cancellation Division and thus dismissed the appeal. The BoA ruled, that the chequerboard pattern is a basic and banal feature composed of very simple elements and that it is well-known that that feature had been commonly used with a decorative purpose in relation to various goods. The BoA went on to hold that the trademark, in the absence of features capable of distinguishing it from other representations of chequerboards, is not capable of fulfilling the essential function of a trademark to indicate the origin. Furthermore, the BoA considered that the weft and warp structure of the contested trademark did not constitute a substantial feature of that trademark and did not give it a distinctive character. Furthermore, the fact that the weft and warp structure of that trademark had been copied does not demonstrate that it acted as an indication of commercial origin for the relevant public. The BoA consequently is of the opinion that the trademark is very simple and contains no element capable of individualizing it in such a way that it would not appear as a common and basic chequerboard pattern. Furthermore, the court added that signs such as the contested trademark were typically used as supplementary signs which coexisted beside the manufacturer’s house mark. As a result the BoA decided that the trademark was devoid of any distinctive character. Finally, the BoA come to the conclusion, that the documents produced by the proprietor of the contested trademark did not demonstrate that the relevant public would be in the habit of making an assumption on the commercial origin of the goods at hand based on patterns. The court considered, that on the basis of the evidence provided by the applicant, it had not been established that the contested trademark had acquired distinctive character through the use which had been made of it in a substantial part of the relevant territory. Decision of the Court The EGC confirmed the earlier decisions, and therefore consequently, dismissed the appeals of Louis Vuitton. First of all, the EGC is of the opinion that the trademark lacks distinctive character. The Court applied the case-law on the assessment of inherent distinctiveness of 3D and word/device marks which coincide with the appearance of the products, according to which consumers perceive those signs as commercial origin identifiers with some difficulty if they do not bear any graphic or word elements, unless they depart from the norms and customs of the sector. The chequered board patterns are not fulfilling these conditions because they are too basic, too common and lack any specific character. Moreover, they are used very often for decorative purposes on bags and luggage. Secondly, the court is of the opinion, that a CTM must have distinctiveness throughout the EU given the unitary character of CTMs. It follows that a CTM cannot be registered if it is not distinctive in parts of the EU. Nevertheless, CTMs can acquire distinctive character through use either at the time of filing or after registration in order for them not to be vulnerable to a validity challenge. The EGC held that the BoA correctly made the overall assessment of the evidence provided by Louis Vuitton which, however, could not lead to the conclusion that its marks had acquired distinctive character because of the use made of them in the relevant periods of time and in all the territories in which the marks were not deemed to be inherently distinctive - in these cases the entire EU. Indeed, unless Louis Vuitton could have proved the contrary, the assessment of their distinctiveness was to be the same in the entire EU, and both were deemed to lack distinctive character ab initio in all Member States. As a result of these, the trademark has to be declared null and void.

The EGC decided that a likelihood of confusion between the word device/mark “Skype” and the word mark “SKY” exists (Judgment dated 5 May 2015; Case No.: T‑184/13). Background of the Case and Subject Matter On 28 June 2005, Skype Ultd., which now belongs to Microsoft, filed for a Community Trademark (CTM) Application at the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) for the word/device mark “Skype” (see right below). The CTM Application was published in the Community Trademarks Bulletin No 21/2006 of 22 May 2006. [[{"type":"media","fid":"4522","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image alignnone wp-image-2158","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"620","height":"123"}}]] Afterwards, on 21 August 2006, the interveners, British Sky Broadcasting Group plc, now Sky plc, and Sky IP International Ltd, filed a notice of opposition against the trademark applied for. The opposition was based, in particular, on the earlier CTM “SKY”, which was filed on 30 April 2003 and registered on 14 October 2008. On 16 November 2010, the Opposition Division upheld the opposition. On 11 January 2011, the applicant filed a notice of appeal with OHIM against the Opposition Division’s decision. By decision of 30 January 2013, the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM (BoA) dismissed the appeal. In particular, it found that the goods and services covered by the trademarks at issue were identical and that there was an average degree of visual, aural and conceptual similarity between the marks at issue. The BoA is of the opinion, that the SKY brand enjoys a high degree of distinctiveness in the United Kingdom and the degree of its distinctiveness is average for the remaining goods and services at issue. Consequently, the BoA found there to be a likelihood of confusion, even taking into account a possible higher degree of attention of the relevant consumer. Moreover, the conditions for establishing a reduction in the likelihood of confusion on account of a peaceful coexistence of the marks on the market were not fulfilled in this case. Decision of the Court The European General Court (EGC) dismissed Skype’s appeal. The EGC is of the opinion that there exists a likelihood of confusion between the word/device mark “Skype” and the word mark “SKY”. Regarding the visual, phonetic and conceptual similarity of the signs at issue, the EGC has confirmed that the pronunciation of the vowel “y” is not shorter in the word “Skype” than it is in the word “Sky”. In addition, the word “Sky” is part of the basic vocabulary of the English language and remains clearly identifiable within the word “Skype”, in spite of the fact that the latter is written as only one word. Finally, the element “Sky” in the word ”Skype” can perfectly well be identified by the relevant public, even if the remaining element “pe” has no specific meaning. Furthermore, the fact that, in the word/device mark applied for, the word element “Skype” is surrounded by the shape of a cloud or a bubble does not affect the average degree of visual, phonetic and conceptual similarity. Visually, the figurative element does only highlight the word element. Phonetically, the figurative element has no meaning. Conceptually, the figurative element conveys no concept, except perhaps that of a cloud, which would further increase the likelihood of the element “Sky” being recognized within the word element “Skype”, for clouds are to be found. The EGC also does not accept the argument that the “Skype” signs are highly distinctive because they are known by the public. Rather, the Court declares that, even if the term ”Skype” had acquired a meaning of its own for identifying the telecommunications services provided by the company Skype, it would be a generic, and consequently descriptive, term for services of that kind. In conclusion, the EGC rejected the applicant’s argument based on a supposed peaceful coexistence between the trademarks. The EGC noted, first, that the coexistence of the trademarks at issue in the United Kingdom can concern only peer-to-peer communication services and therefore, cannot lessen the likelihood of confusion in respect of the many other goods and services covered by the signs. In addition, the coexistence has not lasted long enough to give grounds for the assumption that it was based on the absence of any likelihood of confusion in the mind of the relevant public.

[[{"type":"media","fid":"4520","view_mode":"media_large","instance_fields":"override","attributes":{"class":"media-image wp-image-2150 alignright","typeof":"foaf:Image","style":"","width":"170","height":"118"}}]] The European Court of Justice (ECJ) decided that the language selection of the European Patent Court is no discrimination (Judgment dated 05 May 2015; Case No.: C-147/13). Background of the Case and Subject Matter The Kingdom of Spain claims infringement of the principle of non-discrimination on the ground of language since the regulation establishes, with respect to the European patent with unitary effect (EPUE), a language arrangement which is prejudicial to individuals whose language is not one of the official languages of the European Patent Office, which are English, French and German. Spain submits that any exception to the principle that the official languages of the European Union have equal status ought to be justified by criteria which are other than purely economic. Decision of the Court The ECJ recognizes that the regulation differentiates between the official languages of the EU. But, it emphasizes that the regulation has a legitimate objective, namely the creation of a uniform and simple translation regime for the EPUE so as to facilitate access to patent protection, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. The complexity and particularly high costs of the current European patent protection system constitute an obstacle to patent protection within the EU and affect adversely the capacity to innovate and compete of European businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises. The Court emphasizes that the language arrangements established by the regulation give access to the EPUE and the patent system as a whole easier, less costly and legally more secure. The regulation is also perfectly executed, as it maintains the necessary balance between the interests of applicants for EPUEs and the interests of other economic operators.

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