In addition to the aforementioned signs, other signs are of secondary importance.
For example, domain names are not signs in the strict sense, which would establish a separate right. The domain has no distinguishing function, but rather an address function, like a house number. Consequently, a trade mark, for example, cannot be successfully challenged on the basis of a domain. On the other hand, the use of a designation in a domain can certainly lead to the creation of a company designation or a work title right if the public perceives the domain respectively due to its specific use. The significance of domains in the law of designations is therefore largely limited to the ability to remove disruptive domains with the help of designation rights.
In contrast, the plant variety denomination^[1] is again a distinguishing sign for certain protected plant varieties. The holder of a plant variety right cannot derive direct claims against third parties from the variety denomination. The plant variety denomination is therefore - similar to the company name under the German Commercial Code - more of an organisational instrument than an intellectual property right.
It was only in 2004 that the Olympic rings and Olympic designations were placed under protection in Germany by a special law (OlympiaschutzG)^[2]. This was because the German courts had previously considered the Olympic rings to be insufficiently distinctive and had refused them protection under designation law. In order to qualify Germany as a potential venue for the Olympic Games, a special law had to be created. Since then, the Olympic rings and the terms 'Olympiade', 'Olympia' and 'olympisch' have constituted a designation right of their own kind. The special law is not compatible with the TMD, which conclusively regulates the law of registered trade marks, since the Olympic symbols are used as product designations and therefore as trade marks, and since no other^[3] privileged treatment of the Olympic associations can be discerned. Nevertheless, the Federal Court of Justice also accepts genuine concurrent claims with trademark law provisions.^[4] Due to the limited scope of protection of the OlympiaschutzG, trademark protection must be examined separately, although the assessments of the OlympiaschutzG can be used for individual questions - such as the unfair exploitation of reputation. ^[5] Not every use that could impair the commercial exploitation of the Olympic designations by the holders of the protective rights under § 2 of the OlympiaschutzG constitutes an unfair exploitation of the reputation of the Olympic Games or the Olympic Movement. The boundary to unfair exploitation is crossed only where the reputation of the Olympic Games is exploited in a way that only an official sponsor is entitled to, or perhaps a manufacturer of sports equipment that is not a sponsor but whose products are used by athletes at the Olympic Games.^[6]
The law must therefore be interpreted strictly, at least.^[7] If a discounter advertises five grill patties arranged like the Olympic rings during the Olympic Games, this does not constitute an infringement.^[8] Rather, for there to be an infringement, an advertisement must give the impression that the advertiser is an official sponsor.^[9] The descriptive use of the term 'simply Olympic' on clothing is also permissible as long as it does not give the impression of a sponsorship link.^[10]