NEWS

“Bayern Bazi” Lacks Distinctiveness

Federal Patent Court (BPatG), decision of 26 Feb 2025, 30 W (pat) 525/22 – “Bayern Bazi” not registrable

 Contents

Background

The applicant sought to register the word mark “Bayern Bazi” for a broad list of goods and services in Classes 18, 25, 28, 29, 30 and 43.

DPMA Decision

The German Patent and Trade Mark Office (DPMA) refused the application, holding that the sign merely describes a “typical Bavarian” and indicates origin from Bavaria rather than commercial origin.

Appeal before the BPatG

The appeal was dismissed. The BPatG upheld the refusal.

Court’s Reasoning: Dialect term + indication of origin = descriptive use

“Bayern” is a geographical indication; “Bazi” is commonly understood (including in dictionaries) as a colloquial—sometimes pejorative—term for a Bavarian person. Together, consumers perceive “Bayern Bazi” as meaning “particularly Bavarian/from Bavaria,” not as a trade mark. The duplicative construction reinforces the descriptive message (cf. case law on emphatic duplications such as “AUTOAUTO!”). Earlier registrations cited by the applicant (e.g., “Exilbayer”) were not comparable, as the sign here lacks any fanciful distinctiveness beyond its descriptive content.

To the point

The refusal stands based on lack of distinctiveness. (Further appeal would require leave to appeal; the decision does not indicate such leave.)

Case No.: 30 W (pat) 525/22

Source: Decision of the German Federal Patent Court of 26 February 2025 – “Bayern Bazi”.

MORE NEWS
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).
Trademark Law

General Court: “Eco” may still shape the overall impression despite being descriptive

The General Court clarifies that descriptive elements can still matter in the comparison of signs—especially when placed at the beginning and drawing attention due to their length/position.

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