Austria: When is joint use of trade marks allowed?
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Austria: When is joint use of trade marks allowed?

Sponsored by


Ten years ago the Austrian Supreme Court decided a case concerning Mazda and a tuning company. The tuning company had offered its chip tuning parts for a range of cars. It also named on its website the car types for which it offered these chips. For that it used the cars' word marks and the figurative marks (logos).

The trade marks of the car manufacturer Mazda (word and logo) are famous marks in Austria. Famous marks are also protected when it comes to non-related goods and services (for example, chips and tuning systems). Identical use always means taking unfair advantage of the repute of these marks. Their use by others is only allowed if necessary to inform consumers about the kind of goods or services offered. In the above context, this necessity is limited to the naming of the car types for which these chips are offered and therefore to the use of the word mark. As a result, the Supreme Court found that the additional use of the logo is an infringement of the protected famous figurative mark.

This decision was used in a recent complaint by Davidoff perfumes against an Austrian online mail order firm which is not a specialised dealer in the selective distribution system of Davidoff. The defendant offered original Davidoff perfumes which it bought from an authorised intermediary. In its offers on the web, it used not only the word mark but also the relevant figurative marks as shown on the goods. The plaintiff accepted the necessity of using the word mark Davidoff but pleaded that the use of any other mark including figurative marks is trade mark infringement analogous to the above referenced decision.

However, all instances held that this is a case of exhaustion of rights not comparable to the earlier case. The product presentation was done professionally with no hint of any economic relationship with Davidoff. This trade mark use was clearly not done to promote the services of the mail order house.

The law on exhaustion of rights means that the owner of the marks can no longer object to further sales if the product with the trade mark was put into commerce within the EEA with its consent. The trade mark owner loses its control of the further channel of distribution but retains its control to the extent that its marks are only used for the goods it placed on the market. There is no evidence that the original products offered are changed or impaired so that the only exception to that rule does not apply. A limitation in an exhaustion case dictating that the trade marks are used only as far as is necessary is not part of that rule.

Therefore, the Supreme Court found that in an exhaustion case, all the trade marks used with the product once sold can also be used for that product by the ensuing trade channels.


Helmut Sonn

SONN & PARTNER Patentanwälte

Riemergasse 14

A-1010 Vienna, Austria

Tel: +43 1 512 84 05

Fax: +43 1 512 98 05

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

External counsel for automotive companies explain how trends such as AI and vehicle connectivity are affecting their practices and reveal what their clients are prioritising
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The winners of the awards will be revealed at a gala dinner in New York City on April 25
Counsel debate the potential outcome of SCOTUS’s latest copyright case after justices questioned whether they should dismiss it
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP lawyer about their life and career
The small Düsseldorf firm is making a big impact in the UPC. Founding partner Christof Augenstein explains why
The court criticised Oppo’s attempts to delay proceedings and imposed a penalty, adding that the Chinese company may need to pay more if the trial isn’t concluded this year
Miguel Hernandez explains how he secured victory for baby care company Naterra in his first oral argument before the Federal Circuit
The UPC judges are wrong – restricting access to court documents, and making parties appoint a lawyer only to have a chance of seeing them, is madness
The group, which includes the Volkswagen, Seat and Audi brands, is now licensed to use SEPs owned by more than 60 patent owners
Gift this article