SERVICE : News
April 2011
In the decision “SUPERgirl”, the German Federal Supreme Court of Justice (BGH) stated that it did not consider it a substantial procedural violation that the Trademark Division denied registration of a registered sign as a trademark due to lack of distinctiveness and that in doing so, the Trademark Division had taken into consideration the prior registration of similar signs brought forward by the applicant, but had not provided detailed reasons for a differential assessment, and had not explained that it held the previous registrations to be unlawful.
November 2010
The regional appeal court Hamburg has stated in an interim injunction "eiPott" of August 9, 2010 that the use of "eiPott" as a mark - ei in german corresponds to egg, and Pott in a northern German dialect corresponds to pot) for an egg cup infringes the registered mark "IPOD", which was also registered for the following goods and services: equipment and containers for household and kitchen.
October 2010
The German Federal Supreme Court has stated in the decision "Stretch limousine" of April 22, 2010 that a Community design application is not publicly available before it is published. Further, it is also not publicly available when the community design is subject of deferred publication before it is published, because these community designs are not subject of a free file inspection.
August 2010
The German Federal Supreme Court has stated in February 4, 2010 in the decision "Articulated coupling" that the determination of the technical problem of the patent is a part of the interpretation of the claims. The technical problem shall be developed from the part what the invention effectively achieves. Further, the claim has, with respect to the object of the invention, precedence over the description. However, the object contained in the description may give a hint to the correct understanding of the claim. The higher regional court has wrongly assumed that the combination of the features of the independent claim have to solve all partial problems. However, the German Federal Supreme Court states that from the function of the individual features in context of the claim it should be deducted which technical problem these features solve seperately and in its entirety.
Juli 2010
The German Federal Supreme Court has stated on April 22, 2010 in the decision "Dynamically generating structured documents" that a method concerning the direct cooperation of elements of a data processing system, for example of a server with a client for dynamically generating structured documents, is of technical nature. Such a method is not excluded from patentability as a program for computers, if a technical problem is solved with technical means.
Juni 2010
The Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office confirmed in the decision G3/08 the approach of the European Patent Office reagrding the patentability of the computer programs. The President of the European Patent Office has referred four questions to the Board of Appeal with fundamental importance for the patenting of computer programs by the European Patent Office. The Enlarged Board of Appeal concluded that there were no conflicting Board of Appeal decisions. Thus, the legal requirement for a referral were not met.
Mai 2010
We have moved! Please note that you can reach us from Mai 1, 2010, under the following address: Zimmermann & Partner Josephspitalstr. 15 D-80331 München Our P.O.Box, telephone number, fax number, and email address remain unchanged.
March 2010
In the Decision "Legostein" I ZB 53/07 the Federal High Court has decided about the question, whether a sign consists exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result, the features should remain out of consideration that form the basic shape of the type of goods. Even if the technical effect - for example the clamp effect of pimples - may be achieved by differenlty formed pimples, the form of goods is excluded from trademark protection.
March 2010
Since February 13, 2010 international industrial designs may be filed via the German Patent and Trademark Office. From this date, the ratification of the Geneva act of July 2, 1999 of the Hague Agreement concerning the international deposit of industrial designs entered in force in Germany.
February 2010
n the decision 6 U 131/09 the Regional Appeal Court Düsseldorf has decided about the overtaking of a motif of an ice bear from a package of the sweet "Wick Blau" by a competitor of a also known product "Atemgold". Based on §4 Nr. 9 lit.b of the Law against unfair competition the court has decided that the motif of the ice bear is highly inspire the imagination und thus has an individual character and that the overtaking of the motif is a inadequate exploitation of the appreciation because of the high notoriety of the "Wick Blau" sweets. Further the court indicated that not only luxury goods fall under the protection of the complemental competition law related protection, but also for popular products from the food and luxury food industry an inadequate image transfer may be assumed.
November 2009 -10 Year Anniversary of Zimmermann & Partner
Ten years ago Gerd Zimmermann, Christian Ginzel and Thomas Leidescher founded the patent law firm Zimmermann & Partner in Munich. Since 2001, Zimmermann & Partner is active in Berlin, which resulted in a second office. In the meantime Zimmermann & Partner has grown to 23 experts that prosecute, defend and enforce industrial property rights. We thank all our clients for the excellent cooperation.
October 2009
From October 1, 2009 the law amending the patent law enters into force. Now, for German patent applications a claim fee is payable from the 11 claim and each subsequent claim. Further, the nullity proceedings have been amended to reduce the time of proceedings. According to the amended law for employees invention, reported employees inventions are automatically transferred to the employer after four month, unless the employer released the invention. With respect to trade marks, also earlier signs, for example use marks and business designations, and the increased protection of marks having a reputation in Germany may be used in opposition proceedings against registered marks.
September 2009
In the decision "Aufblasventil" (4b 0 164/07) the district court of Düsseldorf has indicated that an omission of a header, like "Technical Field", "Background Art", "Brief Description of the Invention" etc., of the translation of a European Patent filed with the German Patent and Trademark Office may lead to a nullity of the German part of the European Patent. The district court in Mannheim did not follow this opinion in the recent decision "Spurschlingerung mit Steuerungsdaten" of July 10, 2009 (7 O 327/08). In particular the Mannheim district court indicated that a European Patent is still valid if a filed translation is not complete or incorrect. In case the translation is very incorrect, the infringer may acquire the right to continue the use of the invention, which he started in good faith of the correctness of the translation. The presiding judge of the Regional Appeal Court Düsseldorf supported this point of view in an article of a journal (Mitt. 2009, 345). Thus, it may be assumed, in our view, that the above decision of the Düsseldorf district court will not endure.
August 2009
Judgement of the European Court of Justice Lindt & Sprüngli AG ./. Franz Hauswirth GmbH Three-dimensional mark “Lindt Goldhase” Since the early 1950s Lindt & Sprüngli has produced a chocolate bunny and marketed it since 1994 in Austria. In 2000 Lindt & Sprüngli became proprietor of the three-dimensional mark, representing a gold-coloured chocolate bunny, in a sitting position, wearing a red ribbon and a bell and with the words ‘Lindt GOLDHASE’ in brown lettering. Franz Hauswirth GmbH has marketed a confusingly similar chocolate bunny since 1962. Lindt & Sprüngli brought an action against Franz Hauswirth for trademark infringement, against which Franz Hauswirth defended himself with the argument that Lindt & Sprüngli was acting in bad faith when it filed the application of the mark. In the decision C-529/07 of June 11, 2009, the European Court of Justice indicated that in order to determine whether the applicant is acting in bad faith, all the relevant factors specific to the particular case which pertained at the time of filing the application for registration of the sign as a Community trade mark must take into consideration, in particular: – the fact that the applicant knows or must know that a third party is using, in at least one Member State, an identical or similar sign for an identical or similar product capable of being confused with the sign for which registration is sought; – the applicant’s intention to prevent that third party from continuing to use such a sign; and – the degree of legal protection enjoyed by the third party’s sign and by the sign for which registration is sought.
February 2008
„IMPORTANT NOTICE! Please note that you can reach us from March 1, 2008, under the following address: Zimmermann & Partner Isartorplatz 1 D-80331 München Our P.O.Box, telephone number, fax number, and email address remain unchanged.”
July 2007
In decision G 1/05, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO decided as follows: So far as Article 76(1) EPC is concerned, a divisional application which at its actual date of filing contains subject-matter extending beyond the content of the earlier application as filed can be amended later in order that itssubject-matter no longer so extends, even at a time when the earlier application is no longer pending. Furthermore, the same limitations apply to these amendments as to amendments to any other (non-divisional) applications.
