Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
26 W (pat) 59/12 AI generated

Trademark costs recovery: refusal to shift costs despite withdrawal of appeal due to lack of procedural negligence.

Case Number 26 W (pat) 59/12
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Germany (DE)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Federal Patent Court (BPatG), 26th Senate, dismissed the trademark owner's application to impose the costs of the proceedings on the opponent, effectively upholding the statutory rule that each party bears its own costs in trademark opposition and appeal proceedings. The dispute arose from a trademark opposition case where the opposing party had withdrawn its appeal, leading the trademark owner to request cost recovery on the basis that the withdrawn appeal was hopeless. The court held that under § 71 of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG), costs are only shifted to the opposing party in exceptional circumstances where a participant's conduct violates procedural diligence, such as pursuing a legally hopeless position. The court determined that the withdrawn appeal was not clearly hopeless but rather justifiable, as it remained open for discussion whether the shared word element "elephant" in the respective marks created a likelihood of confusion, thereby failing to meet the threshold for cost attribution.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 71 MarkenG; Trademark costs recovery: refusal to shift costs despite withdrawal of appeal due to lack of procedural negligence: The dispute arose from a trademark opposition case where the opposing party had withdrawn its appeal, leading the trademark owner to request cost recovery on the basis that the withdrawn appeal was hopeless. The court held that under § 71 of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG), costs are only shifted to the opposing party in exceptional circumstances where a participant's conduct violates procedural diligence, such as pursuing a legally hopeless position. The court determined that the withdrawn appeal was not clearly hopeless but rather justifiable, as it remained open for discussion whether the shared word element "elephant" in the respective marks created a likelihood of confusion, thereby failing to meet the threshold for cost attribution.

Keywords

AI generated
trademark opposition cost recovery procedural costs word mark european trademark withdrawal of opposition

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 71 MarkenG
Statutory basis cited in the reasoning for the refusal to deviate from the principle that each party bears its own costs, which is the basis for dismissing the cost application in the dispositive.
AI generated
24 W (pat) 35/13
Trademark appeal withdrawal and statutory cost allocation under § 71 MarkenG excluding general civil procedural principles
29 W (pat) 38/13
Trademark deletion appeal withdrawal: refusal of cost allocation absent obvious hopelessness or abusive conduct under § 71 MarkenG
26 W (pat) 46/13
Trademark opposition withdrawal: no departure from self-cost principle under § 71 MarkenG absent procedural fault where opposition was not ex ante hopeless
26 W (pat) 47/10
Cost imposition following withdrawal of trademark opposition for failure to prove continued use within the shifting statutory period
25 W (pat) 519/18
Trademark appeal: Unsuccessful cost-shifting claim for un-strippable travel expenses following late withdrawal of appeal despite judicial warning of poor prospects

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 71 MarkenG

Statutory basis cited in the reasoning for the refusal to deviate from the principle that each party bears its own costs, which is the basis for dismissing the cost application in the dispositive.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Markenbeschwerdeverfahren - Kostenauferlegung -

[TENOR]

In der Beschwerdesache

…

betreffend die Marke …

hat der 26. Senat (Marken-Beschwerdesenat) des Bundespatentgerichts in der Sitzung vom 31. Oktober 2012 unter Mitwirkung des Vorsitzenden Richters Dr. Fuchs-Wissemann sowie des Richters Reker und des Richters am Landgericht Hermann

beschlossen:

Der Antrag des Markeninhabers, dem Widersprechenden die Kosten des Verfahrens aufzuerlegen, wird zurückgewiesen.

[GRUENDE]

Entgegen der Ansicht des Markeninhabers war vorliegend kein Raum, von dem Grundsatz des § 71 MarkenG, wonach jede Partei ihre Kosten selbst trägt, abzu-weichen.

Für eine Kostenauferlegung bedarf es stets besonderer Umstände, die insbeson-dere dann gegeben sind, wenn ein Verhalten eines Verfahrensbeteiligten vorliegt, das mit der prozessualen Sorgfalt nicht zu vereinbaren ist (BGH GRUR 1972, 600, 601 – Lewapur; GRUR 1996, 399, 401 – Schutzverkleidung). Davon ist auszugehen, wenn ein Verfahrensbeteiligter in einer nach anerkannten Beurteilungsgesichtspunkten aussichtslosen oder zumindest kaum Aussicht auf Erfolg versprechenden Situation sein Interesse an dem Erhalt oder dem Erlöschen des Markenschutzes durchzusetzen versucht (st. Rspr.; vgl. z. B. BPatG Mitt. 1977, 73, 74; vgl. auch Knoll in Ströbele/Hacker Markengesetz, 10. Aufl. § 71 Rn. 11 ff., 14 m. w. N.). Hiervon ist vorliegend nicht auszugehen. Allein die Rücknahme der Beschwerde rechtfertigt nicht die Auferlegung von Kosten. Vielmehr war die Beschwerde nicht in einer Weise aussichtslos, dass eine Kostenauferlegung gerechtfertigt wäre. Es war zumindest diskussionswürdig, ob die sich gegenüberstehenden Zeichen durch den identischen Wortbestandteil „elephant“ eine Prägung erfahren, die die Annahme einer Verwechslungsgefahr begründen könnte.