JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Eighth Chamber) of 13 May 2009 T136/08 - Aurelia
Community trade mark – Community word mark AURELIA – Failure to pay renewal fee – Removal of trade mark from register on expiry of registration – Application for restitutio in integrum
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).
It is possible that a mere aural similarity may create a likelihood of confusion.
The name of a company is not to be considered in dealing with the question of distinctiveness.
The word per se does not lack distinctiveness, but might be subject to a requirement of availability.
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
No possibility of confusion of two identical marks of an undertaking (Unternehmenskennzeichen) if they cover different goods or services.
LOGO is generally not descriptive.
Toolshop is descriptive.