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

Copyright

Birkenstock fails before the Higher Regional Court of Cologne in copyright dispute regarding “Arizona” and “Gizeh” sandals

Birkenstocks do not fulfil the requirements of a work of applied art within the meaning of §§ 2 par. 1 No. 4, par. 2 UrhG (Act on Copyright and Related Rights), because they are not artistically designed beyond their form - which is dictated by their function.
Design Law

How posts on Instagram did disclose the design of Puma’s shoes prior to the 12-month “grace period”

General Court confirmed the invalidity of Puma’s Community Design since the white shoes with a thick black sole had been made available to the public by Puma prior to the 12-month “grace period’.
Copyright

TikTok publishes films without authorisation – no release from liability according to the Act on the Copyright Liability of Online Content Sharing Service Providers (UrhDaG)

Delaying tactics in the negotiations with the copyright owner do not comply with the licence obligation under Section 4 UrhDaG (Act on the Copyright Liability of Online Content Sharing Service Providers).

Karin Simon
Lawyer
Certified IP Lawyer

Susanne Graeser
Lawyer
Certified IP Lawyer

Uhlandstr. 2
80336 Munich
Germany

Phone +49 89 90 42 27 51-0
Fax +49 89 90 42 27 51-9

Karin Simon
Rechtsanwältin

Fachanwältin für
gewerblichen Rechtsschutz

Susanne Graeser
Rechtsanwältin

Fachanwältin für
gewerblichen Rechtsschutz

Uhlandstr. 2
D-80336 München

Tel. +49 89 90 42 27 51-0
Fax +49 89 90 42 27 51-9