EUIPO Confirms Rejection of the Mark "Götterfrucht" (T-379/24) – Legal Requirements for Distinctiveness and Protection

By decision of 11 June 2025, the General Court of the European Union (EuG) rejected the registrability of the EU trade mark "Götterfrucht". The case provides practical insights into the interpretation of absolute grounds for refusal under the EU Trade Mark Regulation, in particular with regard to distinctiveness and the descriptive character of a sign. Our firm AVANTCORE advises with many years of experience and comprehensive expertise in trade mark law on all aspects of trade mark registration and enforcement.

Facts and Proceedings

The claimant, MSG Frucht GmbH, had applied to the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in 2023 for the registration of the word mark "Götterfrucht" for various goods in classes 29, 31 and 32 (including processed fruits, seeds for planting, fruit juices). The EUIPO rejected the application on the basis of Art. 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the EU Trade Mark (UMV). The appeal filed against this was likewise rejected by the Fifth Board of Appeal.

By action before the General Court of the European Union (Case T‑379/24), the claimant sought annulment of the decision. The Court has now dismissed the action and confirmed the grounds for refusal.

Key Grounds for Decision

1. Descriptive Character pursuant to Art. 7(1)(c) UMV

According to established case-law, a sign is subject to a ground for refusal pursuant to Art. 7(1)(c) UMV if it directly describes a property or type of the goods in question. The Court made clear that "Götterfrucht" is a common German designation for fruits of the genus Diospyros (such as kaki or persimmon). This designation is familiar to the relevant German-speaking trade circles and is already used in commerce for advertising and descriptive purposes.

Marks based on common plant names or directly descriptive terms are excluded from registration according to the case-law – even if they have a certain advertising surplus.

2. Absence of Distinctive Character pursuant to Art. 7(1)(b) UMV

Furthermore, the sign lacks any distinctive character in the trade mark law sense. The word combination "Götterfrucht" is not suitable to function as an indication of commercial origin; rather, it is understood by the relevant public merely as an advertising expression, for instance in the sense of "particularly delicious" or "exceptional". This type of designation does not constitute a sufficiently concrete and distinctive identification of a specific undertaking.

3. No Procedural Errors

The claimant had further objected that the EUIPO had not given sufficient consideration to her arguments and had not held oral proceedings. The Court saw no infringement of law in this respect either. It emphasised the broad discretion of the EUIPO when deciding on the necessity of oral proceedings (Art. 96 UMV). Since the facts of the case were sufficiently clarified, there was no obligation to schedule oral proceedings.

The Court also made clear that registrations of national marks (e.g. in Germany or Spain) do not bind the EU trade mark, since the UMV constitutes an autonomous legal system.

Legal Relevance and Practical Implications

The General Court's decision illustrates how high the requirements for protection of marks under the UMV regime are. Above all, the distinctive character of a sign – i.e. its capacity to indicate commercial origin – is a central criterion. Even the association with a particular category or product description can lead to a ground for refusal.

Companies are therefore well advised to involve legal expertise early on when choosing trade mark designations. This applies in particular if terms with a descriptive or advertising flavour are to be used.

Conclusion

The "Götterfrucht" case shows that creative marketing understanding is not to be equated with trade mark law protection. Whoever wishes to build a mark that can be enforced in the long term and defended must pay attention to the legal framework conditions already in the development of the mark.

Our firm AVANTCORE has comprehensive expertise in trade mark law. We support you from the first idea through the trade mark law examination and application to the judicial enforcement of your trade mark rights. In doing so, we rely on an individual, economically sound strategy and clear legal assessment.

Practical Tips for Trade Mark Applicants:

• Avoid terms that have a descriptive function in common usage.
• Check whether the desired sign has sufficient distinctive character.
• Conduct a trade mark protection analysis early on, ideally through specialised legal advice.
• Bear in mind that national trade mark registrations do not have binding effect on the EU trade mark.

For a strategically sound trade mark application, we are at your disposal for advice at any time.

/farbmarke-fuer-schubladenfuehrungen-abgelehnt

/wann-ein-slogan-als-marke-eintragungsfahig-ist

/markenrechtsstreit-um-orange-batg-kippt-farbmarke