BP certainly has bigger problems at the moment, but the decision to refuse its application for WILD BEAN CAFE in Switzerland for coffee, beverages, biscuits, cake, ice cream, printed matter and retail services is worth noting (the application was for a word mark; the picture above shows the mark as it is commonly used). Particularly annoying for BP must be the fact that its application for THE WILD BEAN CAFE was registered in Switzerland in 2002 for essentially the same goods, but given the new decision by the Administrative Court, any infringer will point out the probable invalidity of said registered mark.

The IPO argued that the relevant consumers would understand the sign as descriptive for the type of coffee beans the beverages and foodstuffs such as yoghurt, ice cream, cookies, were made of, i.e. "wild beans" (as opposed to tame beans, I suppose). With regards to printed matter, the IPO argued that such publications could be on the topic of "wild (coffee) beans", and the sign therefore descriptive for any publication that could contain content (not, however, for packaging material). For retail services the sign is descriptive because, well, wild beans could be sold...

The Federal Administrative Court agreed with all of this [nonsense]. However, the IPO went one step too far when it refused the application for soups, too. It argued that well into the 20th century, "coffee soup" was consumend by workers and farmers as a nourishing stimulans. The Administrative Court noted that this "soup" consisted primarily of substitute coffee (Ersatzkaffee) and bread crumbs and was not something that would be commonly referred to as "soup" today. It could also have said "seriously???? Coffee soup??". The application was therefore allowed for soups, which will be a small consolation for BP.

Decision of 4 August 2010 here (in German).