In principle, the proprietor of a registered trade mark can be anyone who has legal capacity under national law. Pursuant to Art. 5 EUTMR and Sec. 7 No. 1 and 2 MarkenG, the proprietor of a registered trade mark may initially be a natural[1] or legal person, including a public body. Several proprietors of a trade mark form a fractional community[2] if they have not regulated their legal relationships differently; they are then necessary parties to the proceedings.[3]
The proprietor of a trade mark can therefore be, for example, the European Company (SE), the association with legal capacity,[4] the foundation, the AG, the GmbH, the KGaA and the eG.
Art. 3 EUTMR and Section 7 No. 3 MarkenG equate companies and other legal entities that have the capacity to be the bearer of rights and obligations of any kind in their own name, to conclude contracts or perform other legal acts and to stand before the courts with legal persons.
This includes the EEIG, German the OHG or KG as well as pre-corporations of corporations.[5] A foreign company is also capable of being a party and thus covered,[6] which, according to its statutes, would have to be treated as a company with legal capacity similar to a limited liability company under German law under the law of the country of incorporation and which has relocated its administrative headquarters to Germany.[7]
The ability the civil law partnership[8] to be the proprietor of a trade mark was initially denied by the First (Trade Mark) Senate of the Federal Court of Justice,[9] meaning that the shareholders could only be trade mark proprietors jointly. This case law has become obsolete since the Second (company law) Senate recognised the legal capacity of the (external) company[10] under civil law.[11] The EUIPO and the Federal Patent Court[12] have registered trade marks that were applied for by civil law partnerships. In the case of a German trade mark application, the name and address of at least one partner authorised to represent the company must also be stated in view of publicity and market protection aspects[13] (Section 5 I No. 2 sentence 2 MarkenV).[14]
One advantage of the external legal subjectivity of a civil law partnership that is important in practice is that a change in the membership has no influence on the continuation of the legal relationship with the partnership.[15] In the event of a change in the membership, the partnership therefore remains the registered owner of the trade mark without the need to amend the register, as was the case under previous case law. The company is authorised to act through its representatives.[16]
Footnotes
Contrary to previous law (Section 1 I WZG), a business operation of the proprietor is not a prerequisite; however, the new regulation does not have retroactive effect - BGH GRUR 1994, 288, 289 Malibu; BGHZ 127, 262 NEUTREX; for legal succession after the death of the applicant, see GC T-298/10 of 8 March 2012 BIODANZA/BIODANZA, ref. 39.
↩On claims within the fractional community in patent law BGH X ZR 163/12 of 27 September 2016 Beschichtungsverfahren.
↩BGH I ZB 27/13 of 13 March 2014 VIVA FRISEURE/VIVA.
↩On this and on trade unions BPatG GRUR 2005, 955, 956 Courage.
↩See BGHZ 80, 129, 132; 117, 323, 326.
↩For foreign companies, see also BGH GRUR 2005, 55 GEDIOS Corporation.
↩BGHZ 151, 204; BGH ZIP 2005, 805; BGH judgement of 19 September 2005 - II ZR 372/03; also CJEU C-208/00 of 5 November 2002 Überseering BV/Nordic Construction Company Baumanagement GmbH (NCC).
↩On the tacit formation of a company under civil law holding intellectual property rights: BGH X ZB 11/14 of 22 September 2015, ref. 14 ff.
↩BGH GRUR 2000, 1028, 1029 Ballermann.
↩On the difficult distinction between external and internal company Schmidt, Karsten, NJW 2001, 993, 1001.
↩BGHZ 146, 341, 357; also BVerfG NJW 2002, 3533.
↩BPatG GRUR 2004, 685 LOTTO; BPatG GRUR 2004, 1030 Trade mark registrability of a GbR.
↩See BGHZ 146, 341, 356 f.; also Ann, Mitt. 2001, 181, 182; Schmidt, Beate, GRUR 2001, 653, 654; Schmidt, Karsten, NJW 2001, 993, 1002.
↩New version: BGBl. I 2004, 3532.
↩BGHZ 146, 341, 345; agreeing with Schmidt , Karsten, NJW 2001, 993, 998; probably also Wertenbruch, DB 2001, 419, 422.
↩See BPatG MarkenR 2007, 524 Pit Bull.
↩