BGH Confirms Cancellation of "Black Friday" Trademark
On June 29, 2023, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed the appeal against the non-admission of the trademark owner's appeal. Consequently, the cancellation ruling of the Kammergericht is now legally binding. This landmark decision means the disputed "Black Friday" trademark must finally be deleted from the register of the German Patent and Trademark Office (DPMA).
Background of the "Black Friday" Trademark Dispute
The "Black Friday" trademark was initially registered in 2016 by Super Union Holdings Ltd. from Hong Kong. This registration soon sparked controversy within the German market. In 2017, the German portal BlackFriday.de formally applied for the trademark's cancellation, initiating a multi-year legal battle.
The legal process involved several stages. The Düsseldorf Regional Court cancelled the trademark in 2018 for all associated goods and services. The trademark owner subsequently appealed this judgment. In 2020, the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court upheld the previous decision by dismissing the appeal, prompting another appeal attempt from the trademark owner.
Key Reasons for the Cancellation of the "Black Friday" Trademark
The BGH ultimately rejected the trademark owner's latest appeal, affirming the prior rulings. This decision confirms that the "Black Friday" trademark is deemed to have expired for all goods and services. The court's reasoning for this significant outcome focused on two primary aspects:
- The BGH recognized that "Black Friday" has become a generic term. It is widely used for various types of discount promotions across different industries and is no longer distinctive.
- Furthermore, the court determined that the term "Black Friday" is unsuitable as an indicator of origin for the trademark owner's specific goods and services. It fails to fulfill the core function of a trademark, which is to distinguish goods or services of one enterprise from those of other enterprises.
Broader Implications: Strengthening Consumer and Business Rights
The cancellation of the "Black Friday" trademark represents a significant victory for the rights of both consumers and businesses. Previously, the trademark owner had attempted to issue warnings and legal threats to companies utilizing the term "Black Friday" in their advertising campaigns. This caused considerable uncertainty and legal challenges for many businesses trying to promote their sales events.
The BGH's definitive decision now clarifies a crucial point: the term "Black Friday" is not a proprietary trademark. Consequently, it can be freely used by anyone, fostering fair competition in digital marketing. This ruling helps prevent the monopolization of commonly understood terms and encourages a more open market environment.
Victory for BlackFriday.de
Beyond the broader implications, the BGH's decision marks an important victory specifically for the BlackFriday.de portal. This platform had consistently challenged the validity of the "Black Friday" trademark for several years, bearing the legal costs and effort. The court's judgment unequivocally confirms that BlackFriday.de, along with other entities, is now free to use the term "Black Friday" without legal repercussions. This is particularly relevant for SEO strategies, where such terms are vital for online visibility and market presence.
Overall, the BGH's decision represents a significant step towards strengthening the rights of consumers and companies in Germany. It underscores the principle that trademarks should not be used as a tool to unduly hinder competition. This ruling provides crucial clarity and ensures fairer market practices, especially in the context of widely recognized promotional terms.
Fazit
The final cancellation of the "Black Friday" trademark by the German Federal Court of Justice establishes a clear precedent. It reaffirms that generic terms cannot be monopolized as trademarks, safeguarding fair competition and consumer access to information. This decision empowers businesses to use common marketing terms freely, without fear of legal challenges.