Autor

Dr. Stefan Fröhlich

Salary Partner

Read More
Autor

Dr. Stefan Fröhlich

Salary Partner

Read More

13. Juli 2020

Brands update - July 2020 – 5 von 9 Insights

No advertising without license, rules the German Federal Court of Justice

  • QUICK READ

The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has ruled that the use of a quality label in advertising for tested products without obtaining a licence constitutes trade mark infringement.

The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) decided in three judgements on the same day that the use of the ÖKO-TEST quality label without a licence constitutes trade mark infringement (judgements of 12.12.2019 (Ref.: I ZR 173/16, I ZR 174/16 and I ZR 117/17). The use of the quality label without the (paid) permission of the trade mark owner ÖKO-TEST exploits the reputation of the well-known quality label in an unfair way.

OKO-test-high-res

The claimant, ÖKO-Test Verlag, is an undertaking which evaluates products through performance and compliance tests, and then informs the public of the results of those evaluations through its well-known ÖKO-TEST magazine in Germany. Manufacturers of products tested may (on payment of a licence fee) include in their advertising the ÖKO-TEST quality label, which is an EU registered trade mark.

oko-test-sehr-gut

The defendants in the three proceedings were dealers. They had advertised products with a slightly modified ÖKÖ-TEST quality label, without having concluded a licence agreement.

ÖKO-TEST Verlag brought an action for trade mark infringement. It demanded that the dealers cease the advertising in question and reimburse the costs of warning letters. The Federal Court had initially waited for a ruling of the European Court of Justice (CJEU) on the trade mark protection afforded to the ÖKÖ-TEST quality label.

The CJEU had already decided in its judgement of 11 April 2019 (C-690/17) that trade mark infringement of a quality label registered as a trade mark is possible. The conditions for this are if the quality label is a well-known trade mark, and the reputation or the distinctive character of the trade mark is unfairly exploited or impaired by its use without due cause.

The BGH concurred with this. The ÖKO-TEST quality label is a well-known trade mark in Germany. The dealers took advantage of the advertising effect of the label and the trust placed in it by the public to promote their own sales without any consideration. This was an unfair exploitation of the repute of the mark, according to the Federal Court.

The Court went on to state that the interest of ÖKO-TEST in controlling the use of the trade mark in advertising to avoid misuse or misunderstandings outweighed the interest of the dealers in referring to positive test results. Such control was necessary to maintain the good reputation of the quality label trade mark.

Key takeaways

Caution is advised advertising with quality labels in Germany. For example, to avoid misleading advertising, it is mandatory to only advertise a product that has actually been tested, and not a similar, near-identical product, instead. Additionally, the source of the advertised test result must always be indicated in an easily identifiable manner.

The quality labels of the major German test organisations (eg ÖKÖ-TEST, Stiftung Warentest) are also protected as trade marks. The recent rulings of the German Federal Court of Justice make it clear that the use of these well-known labels is only permitted after conclusion of a licence agreement with the test provider. 

As such, dealers and manufacturers who wish to use a positive test result from a well-known test facility for advertising purposes free of charge can only do so without using the corresponding logos (eg referencing the results in the advertisement's text).

Call To Action Arrow Image

Newsletter-Anmeldung

Wählen Sie aus unserem Angebot Ihre Interessen aus!

Jetzt abonnieren
Jetzt abonnieren

Related Insights

Marken & Werbung

BGH: Zum Wegfall und Wiederaufleben der Wiederholungsgefahr bei zweiter Unterlassungserklärung

Der BGH hat die bisher umstrittene Frage zur Geeignetheit einer Unterlassungserklärung nach sog. Hamburger Brauch im Falle wiederholter Verletzungshandlung entschieden. Zugleich gibt er seine bisherige Rechtsprechung zum Wegfall der Wiederholungsgefahr auf – mit erheblichen Auswirkungen für die Praxis.

8. Februar 2023
Briefing

von Dr. Stefan Fröhlich

Klicken Sie hier für Details
Marken & Werbung

EuGH: Prozesskostenerstattung für Patentanwälte nur bei Erforderlichkeit

6. Mai 2022
Quick read

von Dr. Stefan Fröhlich

Klicken Sie hier für Details
Marken & Werbung

„ÖKO-TEST III“ – Schadensersatz auch bei Verletzung kostenlos lizenzierter Marken

26. April 2022
Briefing

von Dr. Stefan Fröhlich

Klicken Sie hier für Details