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

Memorisation of AI training data infringes copyright

The Regional Court of Munich I has held that the memorisation of copyrighted training data in OpenAI’s GPT models infringes copyright. The judgment reshapes the legal framework for AI training and highlights key compliance risks for AI providers, rightsholders and companies using generative AI.
Trademark Law

No protection for Jägermeister’s well–known figurative trade mark “Hirschkopf”

Even for well–known trademarks, protection under trade mark law is only possible in so far as the opposing signs have at least a certain similarity.

Using an outdated strikethrough price is misleading

The Wiesbaden Regional Court held that advertising with outdated, significantly higher strike-through prices is misleading and violates the German Price Indication Ordinance (PAngV) in conjunction with the UWG. Consumers understand crossed-out prices as the most recently charged price; if the reference price does not reflect that and there is no clear explanation, the ad suggests an overstated discount. Therefore, strike-through prices must be tied to the price immediately charged before the reduction.
Trademark Law

“Bayern Bazi” Lacks Distinctiveness

The German Federal Patent Court upheld the refusal of the word mark “Bayern Bazi.” The combination of a geographical indication (“Bayern”) and a dialect term (“Bazi”) is perceived as a purely descriptive message (“particularly Bavarian/from Bavaria”), not as an indicator of commercial origin. Prior registrations did not help because the sign lacks a distinctive, imaginative character.
IP

Russian Sanctions: Intellectual Property Rights Also Affected

Article 12g of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine “No Russia Clause”
Trademark Law

Virtual Goods in the Spotlight – The General Court Issues a Landmark Ruling on Whether a Trademark for Virtual Goods Possesses Distinctive Character

Virtual Goods in the Spotlight – The General Court Issues a Landmark Ruling on Whether a Trademark for Virtual Goods Possesses Distinctive Character.

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