NEWS

Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf Confirms Legal Protection for McCain’s Smiley-Shaped Potato Products

OLG Düsseldorf Judgment of December 19, 2024, I-20 U 33/24

 Contents

Background of the Proceedings

The Applicant, part of a globally operating food conglomerate, has been marketing smiley-shaped frozen potato specialties in Germany for more than 25 years. In addition, it is the proprietor of a three-dimensional EU Trade Mark (registration number 001801166) covering “pre-fried potato croquettes and mashed potato products, frozen” (Class 29).

In October 2017, the Respondent exhibited a similar potato product in the form of various smiling faces at the “Anuga” trade fair.

Im Oktober 2017 stellte die Antragsgegnerin auf der Fachmesse „Anuga“ ein ähnliches Kartoffelprodukt in Form verschiedener lächelnder Gesichter aus. 

Decision of the Düsseldorf Regional Court

By way of a preliminary injunction dated November 10, 2017, the Düsseldorf Regional Court prohibited the Respondent from offering, promoting, distributing, or otherwise placing these products on the market. In its judgment of January 10, 2024, the Regional Court confirmed that preliminary injunction.

Appeal Proceedings before the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf

On December 19, 2024, the 20th Civil Senate of the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf dismissed the Respondent’s appeal, thereby affirming the first-instance decision. Presiding Judge at the Higher Regional Court, Erfried Schüttpelz, held that the marketing of smiley-shaped potato products remains prohibited.

Reasoning of the Senate: Relevant Trade Circles Recognize the Unusual Shape as Indicating Origin

According to the Court, the smiley shape is used in the course of trade in a manner that constitutes trade mark use. Given that there are few providers of facially shaped frozen potato products on the market, the relevant trade circles perceive this distinctive shape as an indication of commercial origin. In particular, commercial customers familiar with the market—such as buyers for fast food chains or canteens—associate the smiley shape with the Applicant.

The fact that the Respondent’s products feature its own word/picture mark does not change this conclusion. Furthermore, there is a likelihood of confusion, as the products are offered in the same category of goods, the smiley shape has average distinctiveness, and the overall similarity between the signs is high.

Die Kennzeichnung der Produkte der Antragsgegnerin mit einer Wort-/Bildmarke ändert daran nichts. Zudem liege eine Verwechslungsgefahr vor, da die Produkte in derselben Warenklasse angeboten werden, die Smiley-Form über eine durchschnittliche Kennzeichnungskraft verfügt und eine erhebliche Ähnlichkeit zwischen den Zeichen besteht. 

Final Decision

By rejecting the Respondent’s appeal, the judgment is now final. The Respondent remains prohibited from marketing smiley-shaped potato products.

Source: Press Release of the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf dated December 19, 2024*

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