Higher Regional Court of Cologne provides clarity: “Dubai chocolate” remains an indication of origin

The key provision remains Section 126(1) of the German Trademark Act. It protects indications of geographical origin, i.e. designations where consumers can expect the product to actually originate from the place indicated. If such an indication is present, chocolate that does not originate from Dubai may not be named as such in accordance with Section 127(1) of the German Trademark Act, as this would mislead consumers. According to Section 126(2) of the German Trademark Act, generic names, i.e. terms that no longer remind consumers of the original place of origin, are excluded from this protection.

1. What happened so far 

The background are four cases in preliminary injunction proceedings of the Regional Court in Cologne in which applicants took action against the designation “Dubai chocolate”. The chambers were divided: While the 33^rd civil division of the Regional Court of Cologne found the name misleading in three cases (judgment of 25 February 2025 – Ref. 33 O 513/24; decision of 6 January 2025 – Ref. 33 O 525/24 and Ref. 33 O 544/24), the division for commercial matters of the same court ruled differently in another case in February 2025 (judgment of 26 February 2025 – Ref. 84 O 10/25). In addition, the Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main also denied any misleading nature (decision of 21 January 2025 – 2-06 O 18/25).

You can find more background information on this in our blog posts dated 21 January and 26 March 2025.

2. Clarity in the chocolate dispute: Higher Regional Court of Cologne strengthens protection of origin

In four judgments dated 27 June 2025, the 6th civil panel of the Higher Regional Court of Cologne (Ref. 6 U 52/25, 6 U 53/25, 6 U 58/25 and 6 U 60/25) has now ruled that the respondents' “Dubai Chocolate” suggests an incorrect origin. In the court's view, there is therefore a risk of misleading consumers. 

The Higher Regional Court of Cologne found that the designation “Dubai Chocolate” had been understood from the outset as an indication of geographical origin and not as a generic name. This had not changed as the strict requirements were not met despite the hype in social media. Such a change would only happen if only a very insignificant part of the relevant public still saw the indication as a reference to geographical origin. The panel considered that there was a risk of misleading consumers.

The main arguments are:

• The trend originated in Dubai itself: The recipe was developed there. This origin was repeatedly emphasised in influencer videos and media reports. This distinguishes the case from purely fantasy names such as "Toast Hawaii".
• Price and exclusivity reinforce expectations of origin: In the court's view, the unusually high price of the chocolate and the fact that it was initially difficult to obtain reinforced expectations of a luxury origin in Dubai.
• Product packaging is relevant: The understanding as an indication of origin is supported by the design of the packaging. The depiction of the skyline with well-known buildings such as the "Burj Khalifa", the term "Dubai" in writing and the English-language information lead consumers to expect that the product originates from Dubai. 
• Change in meaning takes time: The change from an indication of origin to a generic name usually takes place slowly and, despite widespread media coverage, is not yet complete in this case.

3. Outlook

This will most likely not be the end of the discussion. Although the four judgments are legally binding as decisions on preliminary injunctions pursuant to § 542 (2) sentence 1 ZPO, however, the respondents have the option of continuing the case in the main proceedings.

The ruling shows that terms that suggest a specific location should be used with great caution and that, in case of doubt, it is better to play it safe by using terms such as "Dubai style". This also applies to future internet phenomena and product trends.

We would be happy to advise you on this matter.