Drinks: Berentzen goes into appeal against a special judgment

Drinks: Berentzen goes into appeal against a special judgment

Drinks
Berentzen goes into appeal against a special judgment






The Emsländer beverage manufacturer Berentzen had to take a slack in the dispute over the design of his Cola mix bottle-now it should go into the second round.

In the special dispute between Paulaner and Berentzen it goes into the second round. After the district court of Munich banned the design of its MIO MIO COLA+ORANGE to the Lower Saxony beverage manufacturer last week, Berentzen is now in appeal. The Munich Higher Regional Court confirmed their entrance. Previously, a spokesman for the manufacturer, especially for spirits, had announced the step. The reason for the judgment caused shake of the head in Lower Saxony.



Berentzen boss Oliver Schwegmann becomes even clearer on LinkedIn and criticizes the judgment as a “alien”. It was not only for him as a legal layperson, but “also with very experienced lawyers and experts in trademark law” for unbelieving sigh.

“Real life is different. Everyone knows that who goes shopping themselves and grazes through the shelves and corridors of the food retail,” writes Schwegmann, listing product categories that also have similar color designs in their eyes: from red chips to brown and blue chocolate lip packs.


It’s not about confusion




The regional court had ruled last week that Cola mix bottles from Mio Mio are too similar to Paulaner’s protected design. According to the court, it was not about the question of whether the two bottles can be confused, but whether the color design could bring customers the idea that the Mio-Mio product belongs to Paulans.


In the judgment, against which Berentzen has now appealed, the court had banned the sale of bottles in the affected design and threatened an order for up to a quarter of a million euros. In addition, MIO million would have to pay compensation and destroy all bottles that have already been produced in its possession. However, the verdict does not initially become final.


The wallpaper did not help in the first instance

Paulaner had justified his complaint with the protection of his color brand – this would be softened if you did not go to similarly designed products. Compensation is not in the foreground.

In the first instance, Berentzen had unsuccessfully argued that colorful design often occurs in cola mix drinks. And emphasizes that his own bottle was not inspired by Paulaner, but a similarly designed wallpaper in the former student room of today’s marketing manager. However, this anecdote had not caught in court. It remains to be seen how the next instance is.

dpa

Source: Stern

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest Posts