Germany: Intellectual Property

In a major decision dated December 19, 2025 (R 2248/2019-G), the Grand Board of Appeal of the EUIPO ruled that the word mark “GEORGE ORWELL” cannot be registered as an EU trade mark (EUTM) for goods and services such as books, films, recorded media, and entertainment, cultural, and educational services. The decision provides important clarification on the registrability of famous persons’ names in cases where such names may be perceived by the relevant public as describing the content or subject matter of the goods and services concerned, rather than their commercial origin.

On April 14, 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a landmark ruling in Case C-590/23 (Pelham II), clarifying the scope of the “pastiche” exception under Article 5(3)(k)...

Am 14. April 2026 hat der Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union (EuGH) in der Rechtssache C‑590/23 (Pelham II) eine grundlegende Entscheidung erlassen und den Anwendungsbereich der Ausnahme für die...

Security for costs application against a claimant company established in Taiwan can be accepted as the facts provided in the case indicate that enforcing a cost decision in Taiwan...

The European Commission has issued its first-ever informal approvals of two separate sustainability initiatives among rivals under its revised Informal Guidance Notice and provided guidance on how the companies...

In recent years, cross-border patent disputes have intensified, drawing an increasing number of Chinese companies into major global litigation. Among the available remedies, injunctions often exert...

The qualification of a party as an SME or the submission of a declaration purporting to establish a party’s SME status pursuant to R. 370.8 RoP is not, in itself, sufficient to dispense with the obligation for said party to provide a security for costs in accordance with R. 158 RoP, if the requirements for the application of that rule are met.

[5] Art. 34 UPCA states that “Decisions of the Court shall cover, in the case of a European patent, the territory of those Contracting Member States for which the European patent has effect”. It is not meant to confine the UPC’s jurisdiction to its own territory. Art. 34 UPCA clarifies that as a rule – unless a more limited scope is requested (cf Art. 43, 76 UPCA) – decisions of the UPC shall cover the territory of all Contracting Member States where a European patent has effect.

[6] Pursuant to R. 360 RoP, if the Court finds that an action has become devoid of purpose and that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on it, it may at any time, on the application of a party or of its own motion, after giving the parties an opportunity to be heard, dispose of the action by way of order.

Confidentiality orders are not limited to trade secrets, they cover any information requiring confidentiality, balanced against the parties’ competing interests

In response to confidentiality interests asserted by the respondent to an application for preservation of evidence (the alleged infringer), the court may order a partial redaction of the expert report before its release...

The court ordered the full disclosure of an expert's inspection report to the patentee because the defendant failed to identify any trade secrets within the given deadline, confirming that parties must actively claim...