Steiff loses bear button CTM case

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Cookies Settings

Steiff loses bear button CTM case

German toy maker Steiff has been told by the EU’s General Court that it cannot obtain a Community trade mark for the label it attaches to its teddy bears’ ears with a button

 

In a ruling delivered today, the Court said that the attachment of a button or a label to the ear of a soft toy is not distinctive because it does not allow average consumers in the EU to know that the toy was made by Steiff.

The German company applied to OHIM for a CTM for its positional mark in 2010 to protect the position of the button in the middle of the ears of the toys, rather than a particular type of label or button.

OHIM said that the mark was devoid of distinctive character and that Steiff could not enjoy an exclusive right to produce soft toys that have a rectangular fabric label attached to their ears by way of a metal button fixed to the ear.

Now the General Court of the Court of Justice of the EU has backed OHIM. It said that the “positional” marks cannot be separated from the overall appearance of the toys. It also ruled that consumers would regard the button and label as a decorative element (one of many possible designs of soft toys) rather than as an indication of commercial origin.

The Court added that it was irrelevant whether Steiff was the only manufacturer to attach a shiny or matt round metal button to the ears of soft toys or a rectangular fabric label in the middle of the ear of soft toys.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Lawyers at Bowmans Kenya discuss the digital blind spots posed by the transition from physical ledgers to cloud databases and digital co-development models
The Powell Gilbert co-founder discusses the confidence required to launch a firm, building an enduring patent litigation practice and why developing the next generation has changed her measure of success
Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
The IP boutique is betting that growing investment in quantum and semiconductors will fuel demand as technology shifts toward physical systems
Gift this article