NEWS

According to the General Court, the figurative mark “Compton” is registrable as trademark

General Court judgement of 28/02/2024, T 747/22 und T 746/22 – “Compton”

 Contents

Compton and Gangsta–Rap

The city of Compton is known for being the origin of West Coast gangsta–rap. “Compton” was registered as a figurative mark in October 2016 for, among other things, travel and carry–on suitcases and clothing. In 2020, New York–based Marketing & Media International GmbH filed an application for a declaration of invalidity with the EUIPO on the grounds that “Compton” is a geographical designation. The city of Compton is located near Los Angeles (USA) and is closely associated with the history of hip hop culture and rap music. The Board of Appeal of the EUIPO ruled in favor of a geographical designation. The trademark proprietor, the Swiss company BIW Invest – known for brands such as Urban Classics, Mister Tee, etc. appealed against this decision to the General Court to have this decision overturned. 

City of Compton less recognized by customers after all

The central question was whether the relevant public would perceive “Compton” as a geographical designation. The Board of Appeal focused on the purchasers of streetwear articles or those with an interest in gangsta–rap – but not on the wider public interested in street fashion. According to the applicant, the city of Compton is known to purchasers interested in gangsta–rap.

EGC decided that it is  the general public but not just a specialized group of customers which has to be taken into account considering the goods claimed. However, no significant part of the general public was aware of the city of “Compton” at the application date.

To the point

Not every geographical designation is a descriptive feature that prevents it from being registered as a trademark. The correct determination of the relevant public is of great importance in trademark law.

Source: European Union

MORE NEWS
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.
AI / Personality Rights

LG Hamburg: AI-generated X post remains attributable to the account operator

The Regional Court of Hamburg held that a continuing defamatory false statement on X remains unlawful under the law of statements even if the post was generated by AI. The account operator can be held responsible for the published content.
AI

Cologne Higher Regional Court: Meta may provisionally use public Facebook and Instagram data for AI training

The Cologne Higher Regional Court rejected an interim injunction against Meta’s announced use of publicly shared Facebook and Instagram data for AI training. In its summary assessment, the court considered the processing likely lawful, in particular on the basis of Article 6(1)(f) GDPR.

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