German English French Spanish Italian Portuguese Polish Japanese Vietnamese Korean Chinese Russian
|Attorney-at-Law Michael Horak, graduate engineer (Electrical Engineering), LL.M. (European Law) Julia Ziegeler, Attorney-at-law Attorney Umberg, LL.M., M.A. Andree Eckhard, Patent Attorney Katharina Gitmann, Attorney-at-law Karoline Behrend, Attorney-at-law Johanna K. Müller, PhD, Patent Attorney Andreas Friedlein, Attorney-at-law Kristel Kolts, LL.M. oec., Attorney-at-law Raiko Sebastian Berger, LL.M., Attorney-at-law Milva Maria Hosty, Attorney-at-law|
Attorneys at law
The judgement of the German Supreme Court – Docket No.: ZB 36/93 – the judgement of the Federal Patent Court of 14th March 1996
When evaluating the possibility of confusion within the meaning of § 9 (I) No. 2 of the Trademark Act – according to BGH GRUR 1977, 218 (MERCOL) – it is taken into account that from the point of view of the market in the case of combined signs the manufacturer’s name as part of the product name is not as important as the combined sign.