German Acts   TM-Conqueror   Contact   Imprint   Links
Attorney-at-Law Michael Horak, graduate engineer (Electrical Engineering), LL.M. (European Law)
german-domains-domainlaw-udrp-adr-licence-antitrust-advertising-law-ec-ecj-food-trademark-search patent application representation epo european patent office represent lawyer attorney 


 

 

 

 

 

 

  Overview   Practice   IP Law   Computer Law   Media Law   Advertising Law   Trademark Applications   Sample Texts   Attorneys Fees   Court Rulings

 

patents-trademarks-copyright-europe patent law trademark law utility model law design law domain law plant law know how law copyright law

european attorney german ip law germany intellectual property law lawyer germany law firm germany ip law it law food law european law

ip-attorney-germany intellectual property attorney in germany and eupore ec lawyer law office ip law ip firm ip prosecution ip litigation media law antitrust law advertising law competition law unfair competition lawyer attorney ec competition law

patent-trademark-attorney-at-law patent law trade mark law design law lawyer agent european attorney domain name law udrp copyright law adr it law german commercial law company law pharma law adminishment law

 

 

 

>Start >Overview >Court Rulings >Trademark law >BGH-Fuenfer
>Start

The ruling of the German Supreme Court of 22nd September 1999 (Bundesgerichtshof, Docket Nr. I ZB19/97) – “Fünfer”

On the distinctiveness required for a trademark registration of an independent word formation based on a number (Fünfer (Fiver) for grape sugar and grape-sugar preparations)

Annotation: The German Supreme Court’s sided with the German Patent and Trademark Office’s refusal to register “Fünfer” (Fiver) due to the lack of distinctive character within the meaning of § 8 (2) (1) of the Trademark Act. The Federal Patent Court held that “Fünfer” being the noun of the number 5 is commonly used in numerous compositions, such as “Fünferpackung” (five pack) and “Fünferlei” (five different kinds). The Federal Patent Court did not entirely rule out the possibility that part of a target group would consider the designation “Fünfer” to be a fancy name rather than they would attach any descriptive meaning to it.

The German Supreme Court reversed the judgement of the Federal Patent Court and referred it back pointing out that the ground for refusal of protection within the meaning of § 8 (2)(2) – requirement of availability (Freihaltebedürfnis) – should be examined again. The judgement of the Federal Patent Court has been reversed on the grounds that the designation “Fünfer” is neither a statement descriptive of the goods nor a common language word constantly perceived as such. The German Supreme Court sided here with the findings of the Federal Patent Court that a part of the target group would consider the designation to be a fancy name (Fantasiebezeichnung).

 

german-trademark-trade-mark-law-patents-utility-models-competition-solicitor-law-firm trade name law trade mark lawyer trademark prosecution trademark ltitgation deutsch english-lawyer-attorney-iplaw-ip-lawyer-it-law-itlawyer international law wipo domain law domain name law international registration ir mark ec mark community trademark english

ip-attorney-ip-lawyer german law german lawyer patent law patent application file patent lawyer print | trademark-law-patent-domain-design-utility-model-europe design law eu design community design law design right international design save | law-of-technics-multi-media-law-german-business-lawyer back | european-trademark-protection-german-trademarks-european-law enquiry


© 1998-2012 IP Attorney at law Michael Horak· Georgstr. 48 · 30159 Hannover · Germany
Fon: +49.511.357356.0 · Fax: +49.511.357356.29 · mailto:horak@iprecht.de