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

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