NEWS

Registered trade mark FlipFlop cancelled

OLG Zweibrücken of 02.03.2022 – 4U63/21 FlipFlop

 Contents

Sign FlipFlop

Everyone knows the trade mark “FlipFlop” for toe separator sandals. A recent judgement by the Higher Regional Court in Zweibrücken/ Germany will not change this. But as a result of the judgement, the sign “FlipFlop” loses its protection as a registered trademark.

Cancellation application by Havaianas

The suppliers of toe separator sandals labelled “Havaianas” requested to cancel the German word mark “FlipFlop”, which was registered in 1997 (including in class 25 for “footwear”). They argued that the sign “FlipFlop” is a purely descriptive indication of goods and is no longer perceived as an indication of a company.

Distinctive character

A trade mark must be distinctive in order to fulfill its function as an indication of origin, namely to distinguish the goods/services of one company from those of another. If it loses this function because it has become a common term for a product/service, a cancellation  can be request according to § 49 para. 2 no. 1 MarkenG. 

The Higher Regional Court in Zweibrücken granted the application for consent to cancellation. According to the survey of the public (retailers and consumers) carried out by the expert, the trade mark had become a common name for toe separator sandals / footwear. Only a completely insignificant proportion of the public considered the sign as indication of origin. According to the survey, only 14% of traders still associated the trade mark with the company, compared to around 4% of consumers.

Common name

The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf already addressed the question of whether “flip-flop” had become a common name for toe separator sandals in 2011. At that time, the answer was in the negative. The mere fact that “FlipFlop” was more frequently used as a term for thong sandals is not sufficient. In order to affirm the existence of a common name, it is necessary that only an insignificant part of the public understands it as a designation of origin.

At the point

The registered trade mark is a monopoly right that can represent a considerable value for the owner. It is essential that the owner protects his right and also takes action against use by unauthorised persons. Otherwise there is a risk of losing the right. Even if there are high requirements for the loss of the right, it is very important that trademarks are actively defended by the trade mark owner, in particular well-known trademarks.

MORE NEWS
AI

AI labelling under Article 50 of the EU AI Act: What applies from August 2026

The transparency obligations under Article 50 of the EU AI Act apply from 2 August 2026. However, the Regulation does not establish a general labelling obligation for all AI-assisted content.
AI / Trademark Law

AI-driven trademark abuse: Why “register first, use later” is becoming riskier

AI tools make it easier to identify unprotected brand names. For businesses, this can quickly become costly on platforms such as Amazon.

Munich Regional Court I: Google must answer for false AI responses

Munich Regional Court I prohibited Google from further disseminating false statements from an “AI Overview”. The AI response was attributed to the search engine operator as its own statement.
Trademark Law

BGH “Mehmet Efendi”: No exhaustion from placing goods on the market in Turkey – association agreement does not extend the EEA

The BGH confirms: Placing EU trade mark goods on the market in Turkey does not trigger exhaustion within the EEA. The EEC–Turkey association framework does not extend the territorial scope of exhaustion; parallel imports into the EEA can be prohibited without the proprietor’s consent.
Trademark Law

BGH “LA BIOSTHETIQUE”: German courts have jurisdiction for targeted online advertising – supplier disclosure may be disproportionate

The BGH aligns international jurisdiction for online trademark infringement with the target market: what matters is where the addressed consumers/traders are located—not the server location or the advertiser’s seat. It also held that disclosure of suppliers/prior owners may exceptionally be disproportionate where the infringement lies solely in the presentation of exhausted goods.
Trade Secrets

CJEU: Infringing “possession” covers stock held abroad—and also indirect possession

The CJEU clarifies that trade mark owners may prohibit “possession” under Art. 10(3)(b) Directive 2015/2436 even where goods are stocked in another Member State—if intended for offering/placing on the market in the protection state. “Possession” also includes indirect control (supervisory/managerial authority).

Karin Simon
Lawyer
Certified IP Lawyer

Susanne Graeser
Lawyer
Certified IP Lawyer

Uhlandstr. 2
80336 Munich
Germany

Karin Simon
Rechtsanwältin
Fachanwältin für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz

Susanne Graeser
Rechtsanwältin
Fachanwältin für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz

Uhlandstr. 2
D-80336 München