NEWS

Legally valid use of a word mark “Gourmet”

EGC 01.03.2023 – T-102/22

 Contents

Correct use of a trade mark

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and the European Court (EC) assess the use of the trade mark “Gourmet” differently. The trade mark owner had to go through several instances to obtain confirmation that he had used his trade mark “correctly” and could enforce it against third parties.

Gourmet against Gourmet

The plaintiff is the owner of the Spanish word mark “GOURMET”. The defendant is the applicant of a European Union trade mark “Gourmet”, which is graphically designed. The defendant contested the use of the opposing trade mark in the opposition proceeding. Therefore, the plaintiff had to prove the use of the word mark to preserve rights.

Use of a word trade mark

If a trade mark is not used in the registered form it is examined whether the used form preserves the rights of the registered trade mark. The applicant has used its word mark in the following forms:

gourmet – EuG 01.03.2023 - T-102/22

EUIPO has rejected the right-preserving use of the Spanish word mark “GOURMET” by these used forms.

This is rather surprising, as a word mark should allow the trade mark owner a certain freedom of use. A word mark does not have to be used 1 to 1 as it is registered, i.e. in TimesNewRoman font size 12 in black colour. It is recognised that a word mark may also be used with graphic elements.

Against this background, the plaintiff certainly assumed that they could easily prove the use of their word mark. In fact, the EC took the same view and affirmed the right-preserving use.

To the point

If a trade mark is not used in its registered attacks of the other party are possible and more efforts may be necessary to enforce your rights. Therefore assess the form of use of your trade marks and carefully evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of a changed form of use.

MORE NEWS
Trademark Law

AI & Branding: Europe’s brand work between “back to basics” and a GenAI leap

European marketing teams are putting branding back at the top for 2026—while GenAI is still rarely scaled broadly. At the same time, DPMA/EUIPO figures show sustained trademark activity.
Trademark Law

German Federal Court of Justice: No title protection for names of fictional film characters without an independent “life” – “Moneypenny”

The BGH clarifies: A fictional character’s name may in principle enjoy title protection—but only if the character itself is perceived as an independently “designatable” work (part) under trademark law. For “Moneypenny”, the court found insufficient individualisation and no sufficient detachment from the underlying work.
Trademark Law

GPTO enables EU-wide protection of regional products – new rights for craft and industrial goods

DPMA enables protection of geographical indications for industrial products such as knives, porcelain & watches – new EU regulation now in force.
Copyright / Design Law

Copyright protection for utilitarian objects: same test as for other works

The CJEU has held that utilitarian objects and works of applied art are protected by copyright under the same originality standard as any other category of works. It rejects a stricter threshold for everyday objects and provides detailed guidance on how national courts must assess originality and infringement in this context.
Copyright

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.

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.

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