Battle of the bunnies: an expert writes ...

Last week the IPKat reported on the chocolate bunny battle between Swiss chocolatier Lindt and their German rivals Hauswirth. A friendly mole whose command of the German language exceeds that of the IPKat reports:
"According to (10 April, 2006), an Austrian lournal and also ORF (the Austrian broadcasting agency: - 22k), an interim decision was rendered by the Austrian Supreme Court. The court decided that Hauswith's sitting rabbit would not be confused with Lindt’s rabbit. Thus Hauswith was allowed to sell the rabbits this year (last year they gave them for free as they could not be sold!).

Comment : For better understanding of the background of this legal battle it has to be added that, in Austria, Easter rabbits are very common. Consumers would not therefore easily confuse one rabbit with another (as may be the case in other countries like Denmark, where Easter rabbits are uncommon). The shape of a sitting rabbit cannot be monopolised therefore by any one undertaking.

“Red” (red ribbon) is a typical colour in the context of Easter. It is not only rabbits that have red accessories, such as red ribbons. Easter lambs together with a red flag, symbolising the victory of Christ) have a long tradition. The recent decision of the Austria Supreme Court seems therefore quite reasonable:

According to, Lindt lost a similar case at first instance in Germany. In Poland, however, Lindt succeeded and the competitor’s Easter rabbits had to be taken off the shelves. The article concludes: Where will the battle end? “At sea and at court You are in God’s hands”, so Roman Hauswirth.

Although the article in the Austrian journal does not mention it expressly, the earlier right is most likely Community trade mark No 1 698 855. At least this was the earlier right invoked in the previous Austrian case 4Ob239/04g, 30 November 2004 (see".
BATTLE OF THE BUNNIES BATTLE OF THE BUNNIES Reviewed by Jeremy on Sunday, April 23, 2006 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.