Luck or Love – No Protection for the Idea of Using an Emotional Catchphrase as a Product Name
1. Foodstuffs can be protected against product imitation under Unfair Competition Law
Also everyday foodstuff products are protected against unfair product imitations under German Unfair Competition Law. They are are considered to have competitive originality if specific design elements or packaging features are apt to serve as an indication of origin or to point out its unique characteristics (see BGH, judgment of 7 December 2023, case I ZR 126/22, para. 15 – Glück).
Despite the "Glück" jam being on the German market for only two years before the launch of "LieBee" honey, the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg recognized its high degree of competitive originality, as it kept a striking distance to other products on the market. The court found that its unique jar shape, the "no label" look, and the use of the emotional catchphrase "Glück" (luck) as a product name contributed to its distinctiveness. The "Glück" trademark would be identified by the relevant public as an emotionally charged sign, capable of indicating commercial origin (see OLG Hamburg, judgment of 16 June 2022, case 5 U 95/21).
2. No protection of abstract ideas, only of the specific product get-up
However, the reasoning of the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg did not withstand the BGH’s appeal examination. The abstract concept of using an "emotional catchphrase" as a product name could not establish competitive originality. Protection against imitation, as per Section 4 No. 3 UWG (German Act against Unfair Competition), is confined to the specific product get-up and does not extend to the underlying abstract idea (see BGH, judgment of 7 December 2023, case I ZR 126/22, para. 23 – Glück).
Consequently, the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg's finding that the "LieBee" honey jar had imitated the “Glück” jam was invalidated. To this end, the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg had argued that significant parts of the relevant public would perceive the emotional catchphrase "love" in the product name "LieBee", even if the trade mark was a pun consisting of "love" and "bee" (see BGH, judgment of 7 December 2023, case I ZR 126/22, para. 30 – Glück).
The BGH found that the use of – different – emotional keywords should have not been considered a distinctive coinciding feature of the two products, as this would otherwise grant protection to the underlying abstract product idea (see BGH, judgment of 7 December 2023, case I ZR 126/22, para. 35 – Glück).
3. Avoidable deception of origin in case of different product names and categories (here: honey and jam)
The Higher Regional Court of Hamburg had accepted an avoidable deception of origin pursuant to Section 4 No. 3 lit. a UWG. It claimed that the public would perceive "LieBee" honey as a product extension and secondary brand of the "Glück" jam manufacturer. In view of the Hamburg Court, it seemed plausible that the same manufacturer would call its jam "Glück" (luck) and its honey "LieBee" (love) if the overall impression of the product get-up was highly similar and unique on the market. The labelling with the different trademark "LieBee" could not exclude the deception of origin (see OLG Hamburg, judgment of 16 June 2022, case 5 U 95/21).
The BGH, however, disagreed, emphasizing that the different product names and categories (honey and jam) could indeed prevent such a deception.
In case of everyday products (such as foodstuffs), which usually do not differ significantly in their appearance and get-up, the public is generally guided by the product and manufacturer labels – and not so much by the packaging get-up (see BGH judgment of 19 October 2000, case I ZR 225/98 – Viennetta; BGH judgement of 7 December 2023, case I ZR 126/22, para. 43 – Glück).
In order to determine whether different product and manufacturer signs are apt to exclude a deception of origin, the court will make a comprehensive assessment of the specific circumstances of the case taking into account what significance the public attaches to these labels (see BGH judgment of 19 October 2000, case I ZR 225/98 – Viennetta). In particular, one must consider what kind of product names and manufacturer labels are used on the product imitation, i.e. how similar and how distinctive the signs are, and in what manner they are used (see BGH, judgment of 26 January 2023, case I ZR 15/22 – KERRYGOLD; BGH judgment of 7 December 2023, case I ZR 126/22, para. 43 – Glück).
Here, the BGH criticized the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg for not giving enough weight to the fact that the product labelling "Glück" on the one hand and "LieBee" on the other differ significantly. In case of clearly differentiating product or manufacturer labels, a deception of origin can only be considered if the public believes the imitation is part of a new series or a product of the original manufacturer marketed under a secondary brand (see BGH judgment of 7 December 2023, case I ZR 126/22, para. 45 – Glück).
The "LieBee" honey would not be perceived as a secondary brand of the manufacturer of the "Glück" jam because honey and jam belonged to different product categories (see BGH judgment of 7 December 2023, case I ZR 126/22, para. 46 – Glück).
Also, the court’s reasoning that the "LieBee" honey could be perceived as a new series of the "Glück" jam was overruled by the BGH. The fact that both products allude to the same general idea of a "product name with an emotional catch-phrase" could not be found relevant for considering both products as part of the same series (see BGH judgment of 7 December 2023, case I ZR 126/22, para. 44, para. 49 – Glück).
4. Exploitation of good repute in the absence of deception of origin
If the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg concludes, in its re-examination, that the "LieBee" honey jar does not constitute an avoidable deception of origin under Section 4 no. 3 lit. a UWG, it must further examine whether there is an inappropriate exploitation of reputation under Section 4 no. 3 lit. b UWG (see BGH judgment of December 7 2023, case I ZR 126/22, para. 52 – Glück). An exploitation of reputation is also possible if a deception of origin must be ruled out due to different product and manufacturer labelling (see OLG Köln, judgment of January 15 2010, case 6 U 131/09 – Wick Blue).
5. Design protection exists in parallel to Unfair Competition Law
Alternatively, the "Glück" jam manufacturer also relied on the infringement of its registered Community Designs for the "Glück" jam’s get-up. In cases of product imitation, protection under Design Law should not be overlooked. Particularly in the first three years after the product launch, an infringement action may also be based on the unregistered Community design pursuant to Art. 19 (2) CDR.
6. Conclusions for Companies
As key takeaways for protection against product imitations, you may bear in mind the following:
- Only the specific product get-up (i.e. the specific combination of all the characteristic features such as the shape, colour, font, illustrations, product labels, etc.) is protected against imitations, not the underlying abstract "product concept".
- Even products with a relatively short market presence can be protected against unfair product imitations under German Unfair Competition Law if they significantly differ from the existing market environment.
- Next to Trade Mark Law and Unfair Competition Law, also consider Design Law and Copyright Law for protection against product imitations.
Helping you enforce your products against imitations (so-called "lookalikes" or "MeToo" products) is integral to our daily consulting practice. Also if you find yourself accused of copying competitor’s product, we are here to assist you and offer our expertise to draw up a defense strategy.
You might also be interested in this
Trademark owners are regularly confronted with the proof of use requirement in disputes before the national trademark offices or courts. After expiry of the 5-year grace period, trademarks that have not been put to genuine used may be declared invalid and thus removed from the register, or disregarded in opposition proceedings. This is because, in principle, anyone who registers a trademark must also make genuine use of it for the registered goods and services. This makes it all the more important for trademark owners whose marks are outside the grace period to be able to prove the genuine use of their marks.
Today we would like to take you away from the legal side of things and introduce you to the "HB Academy" – our internal learning program. In addition to training legal expertise, the program also deliberately focuses on "soft skills" and the personal development of our junior lawyers. Last week, we hosted a half-day workshop with Carmen Schön, who gave us some useful impulses on how to improve our appearance, voice and the perfect pitch.
The year 2024 not only provides an extra day in February, but above all one thing: sports, sports and more sports. With the European Men's Handball and Football Championships, two mega events are taking place in Germany this year. Then there is the European Women's Handball Championship, taking place inter alia in Switzerland and Austria, and of course the Summer Olympics in Paris. As always, numerous companies are ready and waiting to benefit from the pulling effect of such major events. Reason enough for us to shed some light on what you need to bear in mind with event-related advertising measures and what obstacles need to be overcome when it comes to so-called “ambush” marketing. We would like to take this opportunity to thank Frida Felixmüller, who joined us during her legal clerkship, for her great support with this article.
In the fashion industry, first names are often used to designate clothing models. In recent years, this has led to a large number of legal disputes. In particular, the trademark “SAM”, “MO” and “Isha” has been used to issue warning letters to numerous companies that sold clothing models under these names or at least used these signs in their product descriptions. While the courts of instance initially ruled very generously in favour of trademark owners, the ruling practice has changed in recent years under the influence of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) and trademark use and thus infringement has been assumed less frequently. The decisive factor for the question of trademark use is always whether the public perceives the first name as a (secondary) mark or as a mere model designation. Below we provide a brief overview of the change in case law and its practical relevance.
