.:[Double Click To][Close]:.
Get paid To Promote 
at any Location





Showing posts with label trade mark dispute. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trade mark dispute. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

German Federal Patent Court decides in Neuschwanstein castle trade mark dispute

News in the trade mark dispute surrounding the German castle Neuschwanstein (see laden ladenfam's report here) .

By way of reminder: the Bavarian Castle Department (which is part of the Bavarian state government)has the task of regulating the souvenir trade connected to the famous Bavarian fairy tale castle and its surrounding area and registered the word mark "Neuschwanstein" in 2005. The German Federal Association Bundesverband Souvenir Geschenke Ehrenpreise e.V. (BSGE) - which describes itself as "a network of producers, wholesalers, exporters, retailers and trade representatives from the souvenir, sports clubs, trophy and festive items (industry)" - objected to this. Arguing that the Bavarian Castle Department's trade mark registration was akin to "censorship" of the Neuschwanstein souvenir trade, the BSGE filed for an invalidity of this mark at the DPMA. The DPMA (see IPKat report here) decided in the BSGE's favour and invalidated the mark, according to media reports, the DPMA found that "Neuschwanstein" was an "often used", non-distinctive term" and thus not capable to indicate trade origin of the goods and services marketed under the sign.

The German Federal Patent Court has now decided this matter and issued a press release confirming that it has upheld the DPMA's decision to cancel the "Neuschwanstein" trade mark. In its press release of 8 February 2011 concerning "Neuschwanstein" (case reference 25 W (pat) 182/09 of 4 February 2011) the court has provided the following information which this Kat has translated and summarised below.

The sign "Neuschwanstein“had been registered as a trade mark in 2005 for a multitude of goods and services. On 20 November 2007 the German Patent and Trademark Office decided on an invalidity application concerning this mark holding that the mark should be invalidated because it fell foul of § 8 (2) No. 1 German Trademarks Act (MarkenG) since it had lacked distinctiveness at the time of registration and still lacked distinctiveness now.

Upon appeal, the 25th Senate of the German Federal Patent Court upheld this decision and, inter alia, decided that the term "Neuschwanstein" described the castle Neuschwanstein which was commissioned by Kind Ludwig II in the municipality of Schwangau in the state of Bavaria with the castle being a world famous landmark of high (cultural-)historical importance.

As regards to services such as "travel services; catering/hospitality services and accommodation services", the term "Neuschwanstein" does not qualify for trade mark registration since the term could be seen as describing the characteristics of the services in the sense of § 8 (2) No. 2 MarkenG, that is their intended purpose or the geographical origin of rendering the services.

Designations of well-known tourist attractions such as "Neuschwanstein" furthermore lack the necessary distinctiveness under § 8 (2) No. 1 MarkenG concerning such goods that are usually offered in the proximity of such tourist destinations as souvenir articles or to satisfy the demands of tourist with regard to foods, drinks or further articles. This equally applies to services that are usually rendered and offered in a close proximity or in the context of such tourist attractions.

The court stressed that the term "Neuschwanstein" not only described a tourist sight but also a building that is a significant part of the national cultural heritage. The judges further held that designations of cultural sights that are of high importance and/or that are part of the national or international world cultural heritage are common property and as such cannot be monopolised or commercialised through trade mark laws. The court added that these sights usually are not distinctive enough for trade mark registration in the sense of § 8 (2) No. 1 MarkenG, even without a factual reference to claimed goods and services

Given that several aspects of this decision have fundamental importance, the Federal Patent Court allowed a further (partial) appeal to the German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof). On balance, this Kat believes that the court got it right but cannot help but thinking that the general idea of wanting to control the souvenir output surrounding the Neuschwanstein castle is not a bad one. How about having some kind of licensing committee when it comes to merchandise of such historical sights. Merpel, who likes her newly bought Neuschwanstein t-shirt (left), disagrees and thinks that this German Kat is nothing but a snob.... why not let the tourists decide what the want to spend their money on, rather than the Bavarian state?

Case reference : Bundespatentgericht, 25 W (pat) 182/09, delivered on 4 February 2011.

The court's press release can be found here.
The decision can already be retrieved in its entirety (German, PDF) by clicking here.

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Formula 1 fight for right to race as Nelumbo Nucifera

It may not be F1-friendly, but at least
this vehicle has a tail-gate fit for a Kat
laden ladenfam, like most other felines, has struggled to master the art of Formula 1 motor-racing, not least because once he's in the driving seat he's never quite sure where to put his tail.  However, he always watches out for intellectual property issues and, if they happen to concern fast cars and life in the fast lane in general, he is always well disposed to comment on it.  Here he reports on a little news item which is hot off the track.

Team Lotus famously raced in Formula 1 events between 1958 and 1994, achieving great success. Financial difficulties followed and the team has not raced since. A dispute has now arisen over the right to return to the grid under the name Team Lotus. The business of making and racing race cars under the name Team Lotus, which the legendary Colin Chapman kick-started in the 1940s, is currently owned by Team Lotus Ventures. The very same Colin Chapman however started another business in the 1950s, manufacturing other cars under the name Lotus. That business is owned by Group Lotus.

All this happened in the days when people were more excited by fast cars than by intellectual property -- but now we can fast-forward to modern times. During the 2010 Formula 1 season, 1Malaysia Racing Team Sdn Bhd entered a team under the name LOTUS RACING, having taken a licence to the right to use the name from Group Lotus. That licence terminated recently amid disputes between the parties. However, 1Malaysia and related companies, having recently acquired Team Lotus Ventures, have now announced their intention to compete as TEAM LOTUS in 2011. Group Lotus denies that they are entitled to do so, challenging the rights that are said to have been acquired from Team Lotus Ventures.

Although details of the claims by either side have not yet been reported, laden ladenfam notes that Group Lotus is the registered proprietor of a number of trade mark registrations for the word LOTUS and for the roundel (which includes the monogram CABC, the initials of Colin Anthony Bruce Chapman) bearing the word LOTUS. Team Lotus Ventures, on the other hand, owns registrations for TEAM LOTUS and the roundel featuring the words TEAM LOTUS. ...

laden ladenfam suspects that, just as each Formula 1 season consists of a sequence of competitive races, so too will this litigation consist of a sequence of fiercely-fought actions. But the winner won't be the team with the most podium points; it'll be the team that crosses the line first in the final race.  Merpel says, Chapman's a bit of a tautological name really, since "chap" is another word for "man".

Lotus Cars here; Lotus Racing here; Team Lotus here
Lotus fruit (nelumbo nucifera) here
Men saved from Lotus Eaters here
Lotus recipes here
Lotus position for dummies here