Decision of 17 October 2016, file: 27 W (pat) 59/13

Personal names originally comprise an individualized character. Therewith, these trademarks basically possess the ability to convey an indication of the commercial origin of products and services. Personal names are therefore capable of being a trademark and are likewise subject to the examination for absolute grounds for refusal like other word marks. The targeted public concerning the services in question will understand “Pippi Longstocking” as the name of the fictional person from the famous children’s books. However, only the notoriety of the character which is used as a work title does not justify a requirement of availability.

The numerous possible associations being evoked by the literary figure “Pippi Longstocking” solely to be thinking about are all superficially and obviously associated with her behavior and her adventures. With regard to the service “temporary accommodation” the relevant public will assume that hereby an accommodation is involved which is particularly directed to the needs of children.

Further, an understanding of the relevant public is possible in such a way that the relevant public assumes the accommodation may be designed as the “accommodation of Pippi Longstocking. Hereby, it does not play a crucial role that it remains unclear how exactly the respective offer meets these needs since it is sufficient that a close descriptive reference to accommodation services is given.

Due to these reasons, the appeal and the request for cancellation are granted. The affected trademark lacks the necessary distinctiveness according to § 8, paragraph 2 Nr. 1 MarkenG at the date of application (19 November 2001) and at the date of the decision about the request for cancellation.

An appeal should therefore be permitted.