JURISDICTION REPORT: GERMANY
NO TRADEMARK CONFUSION BETWEEN ‘PJUR’ AND ‘PURE’
Jens Künzel Krieger Mes & Graf v. der Groeben
German courts have formed a wide body of case law with respect to the principles governing the ‘likelihood of confusion’ between trademarks. Of course, many principles directly follow from European law, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU), but national case law remains an important body of reference for practitioners and courts alike in all member states.
One recent decision of Germany’s Federal Supreme Court concerns likelihood of confusion in a case where the trademark has a clear descriptive appeal, or arouses clear descriptive associations, and contains some (possibly minor, but sufficiently distinctive) elements that set the mark apart from an entirely descriptive sign, and the attacked mark contains, or is, the descriptive sign (ie, without the distinctive elements of the trademark).
Te plaintiff used the registered trademark ‘Pjur’ for massage oils. Te defendant used the word ‘Pure’ extensively for a series of massage oils. In Germany, ‘Pjur’ is pronounced like the English pronunciation of ‘pure’. It was held by the Court of Appeal (Cologne) that although the plaintiff ’s trademark acquired distinctive character through the different spelling of the word ‘pure’ (ie, ‘Pjur’), there was a likelihood of confusion at least with respect to the tonal and allegorical similarities between the marks.
Te Federal Supreme Court reversed the judgment and dismissed the action. It held that the tonal and allegorical similarities between ‘Pjur’ and ‘Pure’ did not constitute a likelihood of confusion in the case at hand.
First, it reversed the Court of Appeal’s reasoning that the plaintiff ’s trademark ‘Pjur’ had an average distinctive character. Instead, the Federal Supreme Court argued, trademarks with undeniable descriptive appeal are generally of low distinctiveness. Since the grade of distinctiveness can be a decisive, or at least an important, factor for evaluation of whether the trademarks may be confused, that holding had an immediate effect on the question of whether the plaintiff ’s trademark could be confused with the attacked mark.
Second, the Federal Supreme Court did not share the Court of Appeal’s argument that the undeniable tonal and allegorical similarities between the marks led to a likelihood of confusion. It referred to earlier German decisions according to which trademarks with descriptive appeal may enjoy protection only for the elements that constitute the distinctive character. Protection beyond these distinctive elements would effectively give rise to protection of descriptive marks (see, among others, the decision AntiVir/AntiVirus). It also referred to decisions of the CJEU (among others, CK Creationes Kennya of 2010)
www.worldipreview.com
“GRANTING PROTECTION FOR TONAL SIMILARITIES WITH THE DESCRIPTIVE SIGN ‘PURE’ WOULD IN EFFECT MEAN THAT PROTECTION WOULD BE GRANTED FOR THE DESCRIPTIVE SIGN, FROM WHICH THE TRADEMARK ‘PJUR’ DELIBERATELY DEVIATED.”
according to which the question of likelihood of confusion hinges, above all, on the distinctive elements of the plaintiff ’s trademark.
‘Pjur’ and ‘Pure’ are pronounced identically by German consumers, who must be assumed to know the English word ‘pure’ and its correct English pronunciation. Also, it must be assumed that the average German consumer knows the meaning of the English word ‘pure’. He is also said to recognise the underlying meaning of ‘Pjur’, as the German-spelled version of the ‘original’ word pure. So although ‘Pjur’ and ‘Pure’ are therefore undeniably similar in two respects (tonally and allegorically), the similarities cannot give rise to the likelihood of confusion, since granting protection for tonal similarities with the descriptive sign ‘Pure’ would in effect mean that protection would be granted for the descriptive sign, from which the trademark ‘Pjur’ deliberately deviated in order to acquire sufficient distinctiveness in the first place. So the Court of Appeal’s judgment was reversed and, since the court could answer all relevant questions of law and fact for itself, the action was dismissed in its entirety.
The result is absolutely correct. The Court of Appeal’s decision would have meant that trademarks that could be registered only as a result of small deviations in the spelling of descriptive words would have a much wider scope of protection since they would also cover descriptive signs that would never have been able to be registered for lack of distinctive character. So the trademark infringement court has to consider the distinctive elements of the trademark and examine whether the attacked mark makes use of these distinctive elements.
Jens Künzel, LLM, is a partner at Krieger Mes & Graf v. der Groeben. He can be contacted at:
jens.kuenzel@krieger-mes.de
World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2012 101
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