Login | Join Us | Contact Us | Search
 
 
 

 
 
  About Us   Press         Conferences   Members   Teams       Publications   Class 46     Position Papers   FAQs        Links     

Class 46 - for your European trade mark news
 

Now in its sixth year, Class 46  is dedicated to European trade mark law and practice.  This weblog is written by a team of enthusiasts who want to spread the word and share their thoughts with others.
 
  TUESDAY, 7 APRIL 2009
Still no infringement of Tuc cracker shape, says German appellate court

An appeal court in Cologne was asked last December to decide for the second time whether use of a rectangular perforated shape for salty crackers infringed a figurative trade mark consisting of the shape a Tuc cracker (a rectangular perforated cracker shape bearing the word element 'tuc'). The defendant, a rival manufacturer of rectangular perforated crackers, sold a product with rounded edges, unlike those of the Tuc crackers the edges of which suggest an octagonal shape.

First time round, the trial court held the mark infringed but the appeal court reversed this decision. In its opinion the Tuc shape had only a low degree of distinctiveness and the distinctive and dominant elements of the respective signs were dissimilar. The Bundesgerichtshof remitted the dispute to the appeal court, asking it to reconsider (i) whether the shape of the allegedly infringing cracker would be perceived as a trade mark by the relevant public; (ii) how distinctive the claimant's sign was and (iii) whether there existed a likelihood of confusion between the warring crackers.


Hearing the case again, the appeal court concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion among the relevant consumers due to the lack of similarity between the signs: the dominant and distinctive elements of the signs at issue (ie, specific shape and number of perforated holes) were dissimilar. With regard to the similarities between the signs (ie, shape, perforated holes and colour), the court found that they were commonly used for salty crackers and were thus not distinctive.

Source: Philipe Kutschke (Bardehle Pagenberg Dost Altenburg Geissler, Munich), writing in World Trademark Review.

Posted by: Jeremy Phillips @ 12.15 
Tags: Germany, infringement,

 

   0 comments:    Post a comment

 
 

Search Class 46
Search:

Who we all are...

Birgit Clark
Edith Van den Eede
Fidel Porcuna
Frédéric Glaize
Gino Van Roeyen
Jeremy Phillips
Kathrin Vowinckel
Laetitia Lagarde
Mark Schweizer
Markku Tuominen
Niamh Hall
Nikos Prentoulis
Pedro Malaquias
Robert Börner
Tomasz Rychlicki

Receive Class 46 by email
3308 readers now receive the Class 46 weblog by email circular. Why don't you?

To subscribe, just type your email address in the box below, then click the 'Subscribe' button.
email:

Receive Class 46 by RSS Feed
515 readers now receive the Class 46 weblog via an RSS reader.

Subscribe in a reader


The Class 46 archive


+ 2013
+ 2012
+ 2011
+ 2010
- 2009
     + December (44)
     + November (55)
     + October (49)
     + September (48)
     + August (39)
     + July (54)
     + June (54)
     + May (55)
     - April (54)
Spain – recent Judgment on trade mark dilution.
ECJ rejects SAFETY 1ST mark
CHURROS is regarded non-distinctive in Denmark for Spanish waffles
Maltesers: Take A Break Take A KitKat Ball
Poland: 3D cheese in a cask marks
UK IPO: Tribunal Practice Notice (TPN 2/2009)
Poland: Nice Classification in proceedings
PAN 02/09 - Procedure Governing the Appointment of Ex Parte Hearings
UK IPO: "The International Examination Guide" updated
A Kind of Blue: Blue Wonder vs Rio Fantastic Blue
PAGO Opinion coming up next week
Spain – Olympics and Trade Mark Law.
ECJ gives Copad ruling on exhaustion and luxury goods
European Trusted Brands 2009
Poland: some simplified seizures stats for 2008
Obama trade marks
Community design survey: can you help?
Andruty kaliskie gains GI status
OHIM: April Edition of Alicante News
German Federal Patent Court: CCCP
Google v igoogle cybersquatter: 2-0
OHIM closed on 23 April 2009
Revamp of www.dkpto.org - you can help!
Poland: Illegal hare
German Patent and Trademark Office: DPMAregister replaces DPINFO from 30 April 2009
Lamborghini successful as WIPO orders transfer of < lamborghini.tv > to famous carmaker
Poland: whose Heritage is this?
UK IPO: Relocation from Harmsworth House
Two Italian PDO specs to change
Finland: Blue Water and Chocolate
Spain - the "superbrands", revealed.
A new Trade Mark Act for Greece?
Recent trade mark publications
MARQUES essay competition: a reminder
Trade Mark treat of the day
Impact of the new Council Regulation
Spain – An oddity: dive into the Trademark Office archives and visit the Grand-grandpas.
Spain: the Supreme Court on 3D marks … again!
Switzerland: 'Swissness' protection to include foodstuffs
Poland: the nature of a decision
Still no infringement of Tuc cracker shape, says German appellate court
Poland: reputation and renown of non-registered trade marks
Cold comfort for FREON in FREOR fridge cancellation action
AdWords: French first instance court condemns the advertiser
Trouble for Gucci's face-to-face Gs in Sweden
Poland: rules for non-use of a trade mark
Finland: In the year 2015
Poland: ASPIRIN v PLUSPIRYNA
SUNPLUS confusingly similar to SUN, rules ECJ
M-Tel "best Bulgarian brand" in independent survey
Bundesgerichtshof: STREETBALL
Trade Mark Treat of the Day
The EU Commission to prepare a draft Regulation on the labelling of wine.
Brackish rice and winged cakes seek PGI protection
     + March (57)
     + February (48)
     + January (61)
+ 2008
+ 2007

 
 

Terms of Use: The material included on this site is provided for information purposes only, and we make no representations or warranties as to its accuracy. It does not represent legal advice. Before relying on this material, you should take care to verify its accuracy, taking professional advice as appropriate. [Please click here for the full Terms and Conditions of Use]

Copyright ©2008-2013 MARQUES Ltd and Individual Contributors