This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
3D MARKS


may grow over time with extensive use, and may diminish through the appearance of similar products on the market not challenged by the proprietor.


As regards enforcement of the mentioned 3D trademark for the chocolate sticks, the trademark holder had successfully challenged a third party chocolate stick before the Hamburg Appeal Court. Te defendant’s further appeal filed with the Federal Supreme Court remained unsuccessful. Even if the cancellation proceedings led to final cancellation of the sign-in-suit, this would not have an impact on the final and binding character of the decision in litigation proceedings. Nevertheless, the ‘infringer’ could resume use of the allegedly infringing shape.


may grow over time with extensive use, and may diminish through the appearance of similar products on the market not challenged by the proprietor.


As regards enforcement of the mentioned 3D trademark for the chocolate sticks, the trademark holder had successfully challenged a third party chocolate stick before the Hamburg Appeal Court. T e defendant’s further appeal fi led with the Federal Supreme Court remained unsuccessful. Even if the cancellation proceedings led to fi nal cancellation of the sign-in-suit, this would not have an impact on the fi nal and binding character of the decision in litigation proceedings. Nevertheless, the ‘infringer’ could resume use of the allegedly infringing shape.


Contrary to the successful enforcement of the 3D chocolate trademark, the owner of a 3D trademark comprising the shape of a chocolate praline failed to enforce his 3D trademark.


One of the cases attracting great attention recently has been the so-called ‘Battle of the Easter Bunnies’ which was related to the enforcement of the 3D trademark comprising a golden Easter bunny against competitor Easter bunnies: Lindt & Sprüngli initiated legal proceedings in Austria


Contrary to the successful enforcement of the 3D chocolate trademark, the owner of a 3D trademark comprising the shape of a chocolate praline failed to enforce his 3D trademark.


One of the cases attracting great attention recently has been the so-called ‘Battle of the Easter Bunnies’ which was related to the enforcement of the 3D trademark comprising a golden Easter bunny against competitor Easter bunnies: Lindt & Sprüngli initiated legal proceedings in Austria


“PROTECTION AS A REGISTERED 3D TRADEMARK, IN GENERAL, WILL REQUIRE THE FILING OF VARIOUS REPRESENTATIONS SHOWING THE SIGN FROM DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES (AT LEAST IF THE SIGN IS OF A CERTAIN COMPLEXITY).”


and Germany. In Germany, the claimant lost before the Frankfurt District Court and the Frankfurt Appeal Court. Te claimant filed a further appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, which reversed the earlier decision and remanded the case to the Appeal Court. Aſter reconsideration, the Appeal Court rejected the complaint again, but the claimant filed a further appeal with the Federal Supreme Court which, again, reversed the decision and remanded the case to the Appeal Court.


According to press reports, the Appeal Court rejected the complaint again in November 2011. Te decision has not been published yet. It will be interesting to study the reasoning in order to find out whether, this time, the Frankfurt Appeal Court correctly applied trademark principles or again hid some Easter eggs to be found by the Federal Supreme Court (assuming the claimant files a further appeal).


and Germany. In Germany, the claimant lost before the Frankfurt District Court and the Frankfurt Appeal Court. T e claimant fi led a further appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, which reversed the earlier decision and remanded the case to the Appeal Court. Aſt er reconsideration, the Appeal Court rejected the complaint again, but the claimant fi led a further appeal with the Federal Supreme Court which, again, reversed the decision and remanded the case to the Appeal Court.


According to press reports, the Appeal Court rejected the complaint again in November 2011. T e decision has not been published yet. It will be interesting to study the reasoning in order to fi nd out whether, this time, the Frankfurt Appeal Court correctly applied trademark principles or again hid some Easter eggs to be found by the Federal Supreme Court (assuming the claimant fi les a further appeal).


Tese proceedings are of significance beyond the bunny case itself because the Federal Supreme Court provided detailed guidance, inter alia, on the assessment of the overall impression of conflicting 3D signs. Among the important issues of the case was whether the average consumer perceived the shape of the bunny under attack


T ese proceedings are of signifi cance beyond the bunny case itself because the Federal Supreme Court provided detailed guidance, inter alia, on the assessment of the overall impression of confl icting 3D signs. Among the important issues of the case was whether the average consumer perceived the shape of the bunny under attack


84


World Intellectual Property Review Annual 2012


operty Review Annual 2012


www.worldipreview.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176  |  Page 177  |  Page 178  |  Page 179  |  Page 180