Anwalt Deutschland Fachanwalt deutsch German Lawyer Germany English language Attorney-at-law English Lawyer germany french advocat francais allemagneFrench Attorney in Germany spanish language abogado alemania Spanish Attorney/ Lawyer in Germany Italian language avvocatto germania Italian Lawyer/ Attorney Germany Portuguese language advogado Alemanha Portuguese Polish speaking Lawyer/ Attorney in Germany adwokat Niemcy Polish Japanese speaking Lawyer/ Attorney in Germany Bengoshi Doitsu Japanese Attorney/ Lawyer Vietnamese language luat suVietnamese Korean speaking lawyer/ attorney in Germany, EuropeKorean Chinese language Lawyer/ Attorney in Germany/ EuropeChinese Lawyer/ Attorney russian speaking advokat Germaniya 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-Kühne, PhD, Patent Attorney Andreas Friedlein, Attorney-at-law John Bühler, Attorney-at-law

Attorneys at law



Locations  Berlin  Bielefeld  Bremen  Düsseldorf  Frankfurt  Hamburg  Hanover  Munich  Stuttgart  Vienna
Overview  Practice  IP Law  Patent Law  Trademark Law  Law Office  Trademark Application  Patent filer  Sample Texts  German Acts  Court Rulings  Contact  Imprint  Privacy Policy  Links
ip attorney germany lawyer attorney law office germany german law european law patent law design law trademark law copyright law german law ip specialist media law music law film law event law entertainment law contracts license agreement draft contract under german law  hannover prosecution infringement patent trade name copyright reseller contract attorney patent law  utility model law unfair competition law anti trust lawyer
file trdaemark application patent application design application lawyer patent trademark attorney trademark searches similiarity search opposition file an infingement suit germany german attorney ip specialist copyright specialist food law plant law patent lawyer domain law internet law it law computer law

patents-trademarks-copyright-europe law lawyer german law german lawyer german attorney trade mark law patent law utility model law design law

ip-lawyer it lawyer attorney for patents trade specialist ip attorney  marks germany european lawyer trademark european community mark ct ect law europen patent office germany representation

ohim euipo representative german patent office munich lawyer germany ip attorney patent lawyer trademark lawyer patent attorney german patent attorney epo eurpean patent office reprsentation law firm european patent german patent austrian patent office intellectual property design lawyer copyright law trademark law patent attorney trademark attorney design attorney

... Start ... Overview ... Court Rulings ... Trademark law ... BGH-Bonus2

BGH Bonus II

BGH, Judgment of 28 February 2002 - I ZB 10/99 – Federal Patent Court

In Case I ZB 10/99 of 28 Feb 2002 the BGH judged on the issue of the distinctiveness of a German word (“bonus”) with a broad range of meaning, whereas its different aspects of meaning are generally similar and express not only complex economical processes, but also non-economical processes including the metaphorical use of a word.

On Oct 22 1988 the designation “BONUS” had been applied for as a trademark on chemical products for agricultural use. After the German Patent Office had rejected the application on grounds of insufficient distinctiveness of this designation. The Federal Patent Court then confirmed this rejection. After a successful appeal to the BGH the case was returned to the Federal Patent Court, which rejected the appeal again on the following grounds:

The regulations fixed in the Trademark Law also apply to trademarks applied for before the Trademark Law entered into force.

Lack of distinctiveness does not presuppose that the designation describes a trait of a certain product, as the designation “BONUS” will mostly be understood as a familiar general term with no relation to the origin of the product. Above all, the word “BONUS” is a common, descriptive and comprehensible term in German trade and commercial language. It is used in different contexts meaning extra, dividend, surplus, profit, credit entry, etc. In common language “BONUS“ is also used to express an advantage.

Because of its broad range of meaning the word “BONUS” in special as well as in common language is not suited to describe the origin of a product. The prospective buyers of products of such a trademark will tend to believe that in purchasing them they will enjoy advantages of some kind or form. This applies not only to the agricultural product the trademark had been applied for, but also to nearly all other types of products.

The term “BONUS” might be considered as describing the traits of a product (to a significantly higher degree than other designations lacking distinctiveness), since in business dealings a better price can be an equal argument to purchase a product as quality, design, shelf life and the like are. The judgment takes into consideration that for these reasons a minimum distinctiveness may be discerned. Firstly, however, all possible meanings point to an advantage in buying the product and, secondly, irrespective of its special or common language

meaning, it provides no information on the origin of the product whatsoever.

The BGH stated on a second appeal that on reviewing the case insufficient distinctiveness as claimed by the Federal Patent Court cannot be confirmed.

According to Trademark Law, distinctiveness is defined as the inherent suitability of a trademark to differentiate the products of a company using this trademark from products of other companies. Even little distinctiveness is sufficient to guarantee protection. Distinctiveness exists if a concept not describing the main characteristics of a product can be ascribed to its respective trademark, and if a German or foreign language word is not exclusively understood in one way, for example due too its use in advertising, but has distinctive character. The trademark applied for provides the required amount of distinctiveness for its products. The Federal Patent Office’s demands were too high.

© 1998-2021 IP Attorney at law Michael Horak, LL.M, Certified IP Law Specialist

ip-attorney-ip-lawyer german law german lawyer patent law patent application file patent lawyer print trademark-law-patent-domain-design-utility-model-europe design law eu design community design law design right international design save law-of-technics-multi-media-law-german-business-lawyerback european-trademark-protection-german-trademarks-european-lawenquiry