Skip to main content

Bunny dispute: Lindt vs Riegelein - BGH decides again...

Beautifully timed just before Easter, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichthof, case reference I ZR 72/12) has today delivered some bad news to Swiss confectioner Lindt & Sprüngli in one of the longest-running gold bunny trade mark battles:  a defeat in the 12 year dispute between Lindt and its German competitor Riegelein. 
According to German media reports (here and here), Germany’s highest court in civil matters refused to grant Lindt’s final appeal against a decision by the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt (Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt), which in 2011 had held that there was no likelihood of confusion between Lindt’s famous chocolate bunny (right above) and Riegelein’s slightly more bronze coloured bunny (left above).
Now, if this post looks familiar to you and reading it feels like a déjà vu experience then you will not be surprised to learn that this is already the third time the Bundesgerichtshof has  decided in this dispute.   This time it appears - from the media reports so far available - the court only had to decide a procedural point: Lindt’s “Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde” - that is whether the lower court rightfully refused a further appeal to its last decision in this matter.  The Frankfurt court's decision is thus now final.
Initial reports state that Riegelein feels that “justice has been done” and Lindt is “very, very disappointed”. 
It is now for German consumers to decide which bunny they prefer – if they can see a difference that is.
Do you want to reuse the IPKat content? Please refer to our Policies section. If you have any queries or requests for permission, please get in touch with the IPKat team.
Print | Share by email

Comments

  1. Surely its as daft as securing rights on the look of a gingerbread man?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

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: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

← Previous Post Next Post →
About Team Kats' posts Emeritus Kats Events Topics Policies
↑