ECJ Trademark Orange | This judgement deals with the question whether and under what circumstances a colour per se is eligible for trademark protection. |
BGH BONUS II | The dispute concerning the term “BONUS” started in 1988. Now the applicant is trying to register it as a trademark; even though the German Supreme Court had already “obliged” the Federal Patent Tribunal to register the trademark before, it refused to do so again (and again to no avail). |
BGH-ac-pharma | It is possible that a mere aural similarity may create a likelihood of confusion. |
BGH-BlendaxPep | The name of a company is not to be considered in dealing with the question of distinctiveness. |
BGH-Fünfer | The word per se does not lack distinctiveness, but might be subject to a requirement of availability. |
BGH-Acceleration Fee | Repayment of an acceleration fee if the proceedings have not been accelerated due to reasons (such as work overload) within the German Patent and Trademark Office |
OLG-FFM-alcon.de | No possibility of confusion of two identical marks of an undertaking (Unternehmenskennzeichen) if they cover different goods or services. |
BGH-LOGO | LOGO is generally not descriptive. |
KG-Toolshop | Toolshop is descriptive. |
