NEWS

There is a likelihood of association between the figurative mark “Greenlyst” and the word mark “LYST”

Federal Patent Court judgement of 18/03/2023, 29 W (pat) 59/20 – “Lyst/Greenlyst”

 Contents

Lyst or Lust?

“LYST” means “desire” in Danish and is very similar to the German term “Lust”. The Federal Patent Court doubted that consumers would understand this conceptual content and found that the opposing trade mark had a normal distinctive character, in particular in relation to the services “provision of online advertising space for sellers and buyers for advertising” and “online advertising on the Internet and other worldwide computer networks” or “provision of information relating to the online purchase of fashion goods; marketing and trade in goods and for the conclusion of sales promotions”.

Green is ecological

The word “green” is understood both by the average consumer and by experts primarily in the sense of “ecological, environmentally conscious, environmentally friendly, environmentally compatible, sustainable” for a wide variety of products and services.

Lyst not directly similar to Greenlyst

Even if the specific spelling of the later trademark (capital letters at the beginning, followed by lower case letters) suggests a coherent word, it is not an overall conceptual unit. With the combination of the English “green” and the Danish “Lyst”, it cannot be assumed that consumers perceive an overall concept. The differences between the signs are perceived by consumers as phonetic, visual and conceptual comparison regards.

However, due to the identical adoption of the opposing trademark, consumers will assume that the opponent also deals with sustainable products in its services and will therefore associate the later trademark with the opponent.

To the point

There is not always a likelihood of confusion if a trademark is identically copied into another trademark. It depends on whether consumers assume the same origin of the relevant goods or services or assume an economic link between the suppliers. The Federal Patent Court affirmed this in this case because “Greenlyst” is perceived as a specification of the earlier trademark “LYST”.

Source: document.py (bundespatentgericht.de)

MORE NEWS

Memorisation of AI training data infringes copyright

The Regional Court of Munich I has held that the memorisation of copyrighted training data in OpenAI’s GPT models infringes copyright. The judgment reshapes the legal framework for AI training and highlights key compliance risks for AI providers, rightsholders and companies using generative AI.
Trademark Law

No protection for Jägermeister’s well–known figurative trade mark “Hirschkopf”

Even for well–known trademarks, protection under trade mark law is only possible in so far as the opposing signs have at least a certain similarity.

Using an outdated strikethrough price is misleading

The Wiesbaden Regional Court held that advertising with outdated, significantly higher strike-through prices is misleading and violates the German Price Indication Ordinance (PAngV) in conjunction with the UWG. Consumers understand crossed-out prices as the most recently charged price; if the reference price does not reflect that and there is no clear explanation, the ad suggests an overstated discount. Therefore, strike-through prices must be tied to the price immediately charged before the reduction.
Trademark Law

“Bayern Bazi” Lacks Distinctiveness

The German Federal Patent Court upheld the refusal of the word mark “Bayern Bazi.” The combination of a geographical indication (“Bayern”) and a dialect term (“Bazi”) is perceived as a purely descriptive message (“particularly Bavarian/from Bavaria”), not as an indicator of commercial origin. Prior registrations did not help because the sign lacks a distinctive, imaginative character.
IP

Russian Sanctions: Intellectual Property Rights Also Affected

Article 12g of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine “No Russia Clause”
Trademark Law

Virtual Goods in the Spotlight – The General Court Issues a Landmark Ruling on Whether a Trademark for Virtual Goods Possesses Distinctive Character

Virtual Goods in the Spotlight – The General Court Issues a Landmark Ruling on Whether a Trademark for Virtual Goods Possesses Distinctive Character.

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