Work, Identity, and the Regulation of Markets: A Study of Trademark Law in the United States and Germany

Katya Assaf-Zakharov; Lisa Herzog

doi:10.1017/lsi.2019.8

Work, Identity, and the Regulation of Markets: A Study of Trademark Law in the United States and Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 June 2019

Katya Assaf-Zakharov and

Lisa Herzog

Article contents

Abstract
Footnotes
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Abstract

This article considers how legal systems capture different cultural perceptions of work in an individual’s life. We inquire how two models—“human capital,” based on the works of Adam Smith; and “vocation,” based on the works of G. W. F. Hegel—are reflected in legal regulations and judicial rhetoric in the United States and Germany. Specifically, we examine how these two legal systems treat the practice of using personal names—the most direct referents to individuals’ identities—in business. We discuss three sets of cases: cases involving the use of personal names as trademarks, cases involving conflicts between parties with similar names, and cases involving the transfer of rights in personal names. The article demonstrates that the US legal system treats work as a commercial asset, as “human capital” in Smith’s sense, whereas German law perceives work as an integral part of one’s identity, echoing the Hegelian line of “vocation.”

Type: Articles
Information: Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , November 2019 , pp. 1083 - 1112

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2019.8 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: © 2019 American Bar Foundation

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The authors would like to thank Daphna Lewinsohn-Zamir and four reviewers of Law & Social Inquiry for very valuable comments and suggestions.

References

REFERENCES

Altman, Louis, and Pollack, Malla. Callmann on Unfair Competition, Trademarks and Monopolies. 4th ed. Westlaw Database, 2017.Google Scholar

Avineri, Shlomo. Hegel’s Theory of the Modern State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bardsley, Charles Wareing. English Surnames: Their Sources and Significations. 5th ed. London: Chatto & Windus, 1897.Google Scholar

von Bassewitz, Katharina. “Der Name als Marke: Prototyp des Warenzeichens oder non-inherently distinctive term? - Zugleich eine Anmerkung zur US-amerikanischen Entscheidung In re Dr. Matthias Rath.” GRUR Int. (2005): 660–65.Google Scholar

Becker, Gary S. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education. 3d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, [1964] 1993.Google Scholar

Beier, Friedrich-Karl. “Anmerkung zu BGH GRUR 1966, 623.” GRUR (1966): 627–29.Google Scholar

Bone, Robert G. “Hunting Goodwill: A History of the Concept of Goodwill in Trademark Law.” Boston University Law Review 86, no. 3 (2006): 547–622.Google Scholar

Bradley, Francis Herbert. “My Station and Its Duties.” In Ethical Studies, 160–213. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1876.Google Scholar

Campbell, T. D. Adam Smith’s Science of Morals. Glasgow: Glasgow University Press, 1971.Google Scholar

Chamley, Paul. “Les origines de la pensée économique de Hegel.” Hegel-Studien III (1965): 225–61.Google Scholar

Dostal, Werner, Stooß, Friedemann, and Troll, Lothar. “Beruf– Auflösungstendenzen und erneute Konsolidierung.” Mitteilungen zur Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung 3 (1998): 438–60.Google Scholar

Eucken, Walter. Grundsätze der Wirtschaftspolitik. Tübingen: Mohr, 1952.Google Scholar

Fezer, Karl-Heiz. Markenrecht. 4th ed. Munich: C. H. Beck, 2009.Google Scholar

Fleischacker, Samuel. On Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations: A Philosophical Companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004.Google Scholar

Forman-Barzilai, Fonna. Adam Smith and the Circles of Sympathy: Cosmopolitanism and Moral Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.CrossRef Google Scholar

Frey, Michael G. “Comment: Is It Fair to Confuse? An Examination of Trademark Protection, the Fair Use Defense, and the First Amendment.” University of Cincinnati Law Review 65 (1997): 1255–90.Google Scholar

Friedman, Michael. “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits.” The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970.Google Scholar

Gheaus, Anca, and Herzog, Lisa. “The Goods of Work (Other than Money!)” Journal of Social Philosophy 47, no. 1 (2016): 70–89.CrossRef Google Scholar

Götting, Horst P. Persönlichkeitsrechte als Vermögensrechte. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995.Google Scholar

Griswold, Charles L. Jr. Adam Smith and the Virtues of Enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.Google Scholar

Haakonssen, Knud. The Science of the Legislator: The Natural Jurisprudence of David Hume and Adam Smith. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hall, Peter A., and Soskice, David. “An Introduction to Varieties of Capitalism.” In Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage, edited by Hall, Peter A. and Soskice, David, 1–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.CrossRef Google Scholar

Handler, Milton. “A Personal Note on Trademark and Unfair Competition Law before the Lanham Act.” Law and Contemporary Problems 59, no. 2 (1996): 5–11.CrossRef Google Scholar

Handler, Milton, and Pickett, Charles. “Trade-Marks and Trade-Names—An Analysis and Synthesis: I.” Columbia Law Review 30, no. 2 (1930a): 168–201.CrossRef Google Scholar

Handler, Milton, and Pickett, Charles. “Trade-Marks and Trade-Names—An Analysis and Synthesis: II.” Columbia Law Review 30, no. 6 (1930b), 759–88.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hardimon, Michael O. Hegel’s Social Philosophy: The Project of Reconciliation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hegel, G. W. F. Philosophy of Right. Translated with notes by T. M. Knox. Oxford: Clarendon Press, [1820/21] 1942.Google Scholar

Hegel, G. W. F.. G.W.F. Hegel, Vorlesungen über Rechtsphilosophie 1818–1831. Vierter Band. Edited by Ilting, Karl-Heinz. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: frommann-holzboog, [1818–1831] 1974.Google Scholar

Henderson, James P., and Davis, John B.. “Adam Smith’s Influence on Hegel’s Philosophical Writings.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 13, no. 2 (1991): 184–204.CrossRef Google Scholar

Herzog, Lisa. Inventing the Market: Smith, Hegel, and Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013a.CrossRef Google Scholar

Herzog, Lisa.. ed. Hegel’s Thought in Europe: Currents, Crosscurrents, Countercurrents. Houndsmill, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013b.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ingerl, Reinhard, and Christian, Rohnke. Markengesetz. Munich: C. H. Beck, 2010.Google Scholar

Kaplan, Justin, and Anne, Bernays. The Language of Names. New York: Touchstone, 1997.Google Scholar

Knaak, Roland. Das Recht der Gleichnamigen. Cologne: Heymann, 1979.Google Scholar

Kohler, Josef. Das Recht des Markenschutzes, mit Berücksichtigung ausländischer Gesetzgebungen, und mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die englische, anglo-amerikanische, französische, belgische und italienische Jurisprudenz. Würzburg: Stahel, 1884.Google Scholar

Lemley, Mark A., and Shapiro, Carl. “Probabilistic Patents.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 19, no. 2 (2005): 75–98.CrossRef Google Scholar

Liebesman, Yvette Joy. “When Selling Your Personal Name Extends to Selling Your Soul.” Temple Law Review 83, no. 1 (2010): 1–47.Google Scholar

McCarthy, J. Thomas. McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition. 5th ed. Deerfield, IL: Clark Boardman Callaghan, 2017.Google Scholar

McLean, Ian. Adam Smith: Radical and Egalitarian: An Interpretation for the Twenty-First Century. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006.Google Scholar

Mirowski, Philip. Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived the Financial Meltdown. London: Verso, 2013.Google Scholar

Muller, Jerry. The Mind and the Market: Capitalism in Western Thought. New York: Anchor Books, 2002.Google Scholar

Netanel, Neil. “Alienability Restrictions and the Enhancement of Author Autonomy in United States and Continental Copyright Law.” Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 12 (1994): 1–78.Google Scholar

Neuhouser, Frederic. Foundations of Hegel’s Social Theory: Actualizing Freedom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000.Google Scholar

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Menschliches Allzumenschliches. Berlin: Hanser, [1878] 1954.Google Scholar

Nuzzo, Angelica. “The Standpoint of Morality in Adam Smith and Hegel.” In The Philosophy of Adam Smith: The Adam Smith Review, Volume 5: Essays Commemorating the 250^th Anniversary of the Theory of Moral Sentiments, edited by Vivienne, Brown and Samuel, Fleischacker, 37–55. London / New York: Routledge, 2010.Google Scholar

Patten, Alan. Hegel’s Idea of Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.Google Scholar

Pistor, Katharina. “A Legal Theory of Finance.” Journal of Comparative Economics 41, no. 2 (2013): 315–30.CrossRef Google Scholar

Polanyi, Karl. The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press, 1944.Google Scholar

Priddat, Birger. Hegel als Ökonom. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1990.Google Scholar

Radin, Margaret Jane. “Property and Personhood.” Stanford Law Review 34, no. 5 (1982): 957–1016.CrossRef Google Scholar

Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition (1995).Google Scholar

Rifkin, Jeremy. The European Dream: How Europe’s Vision of the Future Is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream. New York: Penguin, 2004.Google Scholar

Rose, Mark. Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993.Google Scholar

Ryan, Alan. The Making of Modern Liberalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012.CrossRef Google Scholar

Säcker, Franz Jürgen, Rixecker, Roland, Oetker, Hartmut, and Limperg, Bettina. Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch: BGB. 7th ed. Munich: C. H. Beck, 2017.Google Scholar

Schmidt am Busch, Hans-Christoph. Hegels Begriff der Arbeit. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2002.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schmitt-Gaedke, Gernot, and Arz, Matthias. “Das Recht der Gleichnamigen und seine Grenzen.” GRUR (2012): 565–70.Google Scholar

Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. 2 vols. Edited by Campbell, R. H. and Skinner, A. S.; textual editor W. B. Todd. Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, [1776] 1976a.Google Scholar

Smith, Adam. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Edited by Raphael, D. D. and Macfie, A. L.. Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, [1790] 1976b.Google Scholar

Taylor, Charles. Hegel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975.CrossRef Google Scholar

Teixeira, Pedro N. “Dr. Smith and the Moderns: Adam Smith and the Development of Human Capital Theory.” Adam Smith Review 3, edited by Brown, Vivienne (2007): 139–58.Google Scholar

Wadle, Elmar. “Entwicklungslinien des deutschen Markenschutzes im 19.” Jahrhundert, GRUR (1979): 383–89.Google Scholar

Waszek, Norbert. The Scottish Enlightenment and Hegel’s Account of “Civil Society.” Dordrecht / Boston / London: Kluwer, 1988.CrossRef Google Scholar

Werhane, Patricia. Adam Smith and His Legacy for Modern Capitalism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.Google Scholar

Wittrock, Quentin R. “Note: Use of Personal Names in Noncompeting Businesses - Doctrines of Unfair Competition, Trademark Infringement, and Dilution.” Iowa L. Rev. 70 (1985): 995–1019.Google Scholar

Wood, Alan W. Hegel’s Ethical Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.CrossRef Google Scholar

Yeoman, Ruth. Meaningful Work and Workplace Democracy. Houndsmill, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.CrossRef Google Scholar

US CASES CITED

Abraham Zion Corp. v. Lebow, 225 U.S.P.Q. 173 (S.D.N.Y. 1984), judgment aff’d, 226 U.S.P.Q. 104 (2d Cir. 1985).Google Scholar

American Steel Foundries v. Robertson, 269 U.S. 372 (1926).Google Scholar

A.V. by Versace, Inc. v. Gianni Versace, S.p.A., 2002 WL 2012618 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).Google Scholar

Avery & Sons v. Meikle & Co., 81 Ky. 73 (1883).Google Scholar

A. W. Cox Dep’t Store Co. v. Cox’s Inc., 159 W. Va. 306 (1976).Google Scholar

Barr v. Sasser, 24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1942 (N.D. Okla. 1992).CrossRef Google Scholar

Basile, S.p.A. v. Basile, 899 F.2d 35 (D.C. Cir. 1990).Google Scholar

Bertolli, USA, Inc. v. Filippo Bertolli Fine Foods, Ltd., 662 F. Supp. 203 (S.D.N.Y. 1987).Google Scholar

Brown Chemical Co. v. Meyer, 139 U.S. 540 (1891).Google Scholar

Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Champion, 23 F. Supp. 638 (E.D. Mich. 1938).Google Scholar

Charles Broadway Rouss, Inc. v. Winchester Co., 300 F. 706 (2d Cir. 1924).Google Scholar

Continental Motors Corp. v. Continental Aviation Corp., 153 U.S.P.Q. 313 (5^th Cir. 1967).Google Scholar

Coty, Inc., v. Parfums De Grande Luxe, 298 F. 865 (2d Cir. 1924).Google Scholar

David B. Findlay, Inc. v. Findlay, 271 N.Y.S.2d 652 (1966).Google Scholar

D.L. Anderson’s Lakeside Leisure Co. v. Anderson, 757 N.W. 2d 803 (Wisc. 2008).Google Scholar

Drake Medicine Co. v. Glessner, 68 Ohio St. 337 (1903).CrossRef Google Scholar

E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co., 967 F.2d 1280 (9^th Cir. 1992).Google Scholar

Flynn v. AK Peters, Ltd., 377 F.3d 13 (1^st Cir. 2004).Google Scholar

Frazer v. Frazer Lubricator Co., 121 Ill. 147 (1887).Google Scholar

Garrett v. T.H. Garrett & Co., 78 F. 472 (C.C.A. 6^th Cir. 1896).Google Scholar

Gucci v. Gucci Shops, Inc., 688 F. Supp. 916 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).Google Scholar

Guth v. Guth Chocolate Co., 224 F. 932 (4^th Cir. 1915).Google Scholar

Hat Corp. of America v. D. L. Davis Corp., 4 F. Supp. 613 (D. Conn. 1933).Google Scholar

Hazelton Boiler Co. v. Hazelton Tripod Boiler Co., 142 Ill. 494 (1892).Google Scholar

Hilton v. Hilton, 89 N.J. Eq. 182 (1918).Google Scholar

Hunt Potato Chip Co. v. Hunt, 164 N.E.2d 335 (1960).Google Scholar

Ida May Co. v. Ensign, 20 Cal. App. 2d 339 (3d Dist. 1937).Google Scholar

JA Apparel Corp. v. Abboud, 591 F. Supp. 2d 306 (S.D.N.Y. 2008), vacated and remanded, 568 F.3d 390 (2d Cir. 2009).Google Scholar

John B. Stetson Co. v. Stephen L. Stetson Co., 54 U.S.P.Q. 38 (C.C.A. 2d Cir. 1942).Google Scholar

John R. Thompson Co. v. Holloway, 366 F.2d 108 (5^th Cir. 1966).Google Scholar

Lazzaroni USA Corp. v. Steiner Foods, 2006 WL 932345 (D.N.J. 2006).Google Scholar

Le Page Co. v. Russia Cement Co., 51 F. 941 (1^st Cir. 1892).CrossRef Google Scholar

In re Leslie Fay Companies, Inc., 216 B.R. 117 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1997).Google Scholar

Levitt Corp. v. Levitt, 593 F.2d 463 (2d Cir. 1979).Google Scholar

L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co., 235 U.S. 88 (1914).Google Scholar

Lewis v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 527 F. Supp. 2d 422 (E.D. Pa. 2007).Google Scholar

Max Factor & Co. v. Factor, 226 F. Supp. 120 (S.D. Cal. 1963).Google Scholar

Meneely v. Meneely, 62 N.Y. 427 (1875).Google Scholar

Paul Frank Indus. v. Sunich, 502 Supp. 2d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2007).Google Scholar

Peaceable Planet v. Ty, 362 F.3d 986 (7^th Cir. 2004).Google Scholar

Perini Corp. v. Perini Construction, Inc., 915 F.2d 121 (4^th Cir. 1990).Google Scholar

Philbrick v. eNom, Inc., 593 F. Supp. 2d 352 (D.N.H. 2009).Google Scholar

Poorman v. Julian, 160 N.E.2d 169 (Ill. App. Ct. 1959).Google Scholar

Reddaway v. Bonham, A.C. 199 (1896).Google Scholar

R.J. Toomey Co. v. Toomey, 683 F. Supp. 873 (D. Mass. 1988).Google Scholar

Robin Woods, Inc. v. Woods, 815 F. Supp. 856 (W.D. Pa. 1992), judgment rev’d on other grounds, 31 U.S.P.Q.2d 1476 (3d Cir. 1994).Google Scholar

Russia Cement Co. v. Le Page, 17 N.E. 304 (Mass. 1888).Google Scholar

Singer Mfg. Co. v. June Mfg. Co., 163 U.S. 169 (1896).Google Scholar

S. Scrap Material Co. v. Smith, 253 Ala. 356 (1950).Google Scholar

Sullivan v. Ed Sullivan Radio & T.V., Inc., 110 U.S.P.Q. 106 (1^st Dep’t 1956).Google Scholar

Tana v. Dantanna’s, 611 F.3d 767 (11^th Cir. 2010).Google Scholar

Tinker v. M.F. Patterson Dental Supply Co., 53 App. D.C. 37 (1923).CrossRef Google Scholar

Vassar College v. Loose-Wiles Biscuit Co., 197 F. 982 (W.D. Mo. 1912).Google Scholar

Visser v. Macres, 137 U.S.P.Q. 492 (4^th Dist. 1963).Google Scholar

V. J. Doyle Plumbing Co., Inc. v. Doyle, 584 P.2d 594 (Ct. App. Div. 1 1978).Google Scholar

W-K-M Div. of Joy Mfg. Co. v. WK Industries, 2 U.S.P.Q.2d 1967 (S.D. Tex. 1987).Google Scholar

Yarmuth-Dion, Inc. v. D’ion Furs, Inc., 835 F.2d 990 (2d Cir. 1987).Google Scholar

GERMAN CASES CITED

Reichsgericht (RG)—The Supreme Court of the German Empire (before 1945)Google Scholar

RG 21.12.1880, RGZ 3, 69 [RG 1880].Google Scholar

RG 22.09.1899, RZG 44, 71– Viktoria [RG 1899].Google Scholar

RG 24.2.1925, RGZ 110, 234– Malzmann [RG 1925a].Google Scholar

RG 15.10.1925, RGZ 111, 69– Arnheim [RG 1925b].Google Scholar

RG Jw. 1926, 1326 [RG 1926a].Google Scholar

RG MuW 1926, 42 [RG 1926b].Google Scholar

RG 22.02.1927, RGZ 116, 209– Stollwerk [RG 1927].CrossRef Google Scholar

RG GRUR 1928, 657, 660– Weber [RG 1928].Google Scholar

RG GRUR 1940, 358 [RG 1940].Google Scholar

RG GRUR 1941, 110 [RG 1941a].Google Scholar

RG MuW 1941, 47– Knipping [RG 1941b].Google Scholar

RG 30.09.1943, DR 1944, 249 [RG 1944a].Google Scholar

RG GRUR 1944, 38– W. C. & Co. GmbH [RG 1944b].Google Scholar

Bundesgerichtshof (BGH)—The Supreme Court of Germany (after 1945)Google Scholar

BGH GRUR 1951, 410– Luppy [BGH 1951].Google Scholar

BGH GRUR 1952, 511– Farina Urkölsch [BGH 1952].Google Scholar

BGH 27.01.1953, I ZR 55/52– Hoch- und Tiefbau [BGH 1953].Google Scholar

BGH GRUR 1957, 342– Underberg [BGH 1957a].Google Scholar

BGH 25.10.1957, I ZR 136/56– Wyeth [BGH 1957b].Google Scholar

BGH GRUR 1958, 143– Schwardmann [BGH 1958a].Google Scholar

BGH GRUR 1958, 185 [BGH 1958b].Google Scholar

BGH GRUR 1960, 33– Zamek [BGH 1960].Google Scholar

BGH 1966, 623– Kupferberg [BGH 1966].Google Scholar

BGH GRUR 1967, 89– Rose [BGH 1967].Google Scholar

BGH GRUR 1968, 212– Hellige [BGH 1968].Google Scholar

BGH 19.05.1976, I ZR 81/75– Kyffhäuser [BGH 1976].Google Scholar

BGH GRUR 1979, 642– Billich [BGH 1979].Google Scholar

BGH 03.07.1986, I ZR 77/85– Stoll [BGH 1986].Google Scholar

BGH GRUR 1987, 128– Nena [BGH 1987a].Google Scholar

BGH GRUR 1987, 182 [BGH 1987b].Google Scholar

BGH NJW-RR 1988, 95 [BGH 1988].Google Scholar

BGH NJW-RR 1990, 618 [BGH 1990a].Google Scholar

BGH 24.10.1990, XII ZR 112/89– Johanniter-Bier [BGH 1990b].Google Scholar

BGH 22.11.1990, I ZR 14/89– Ott International [BGH 1990c].Google Scholar

BGH GRUR 1991, 157 [BGH 1991a].Google Scholar

BGH GRUR 1991, 393 [BGH 1991b].Google Scholar

BGH GRUR 1991, 472– Germania [BGH 1991c].Google Scholar

BGH 01.04.1993, I ZR 85/91– Römer GmbH [BGH 1993a].Google Scholar

BGH GRUR 1993, 579 [BGH 1993b].Google Scholar

BGH GRUR 1995, 507– City-Hotel [BGH 1995a].Google Scholar

BGH GRUR 1995, 825– Torres Fezer [BGH 1995b].Google Scholar

BGH GRUR 1996, 422– J. C. Winter [BGH 1996].Google Scholar

BGH 02.10.1997, I ZR 105/95– “Dr. St. … Nachf.” [BGH 1997].Google Scholar

GRUR 2000, 709– Marlene Dietrich [BGH 2000].Google Scholar

BGH GRUR 2002, 703– Vossius & Partner [BGH 2002].Google Scholar

BGH GRUR 2008, 801– Hansen-Bau [BGH 2008].Google Scholar

Cologne

District CourtsGoogle Scholar

OLG Köln 29.04.1983 6 U 201/82– Tina Farina [OLG Köln 1983].Google Scholar

OLG Köln, 24.10.1986, 6 U 52/86– Rothschild [OLG Köln 1986].Google Scholar

OLG Karlsruhe, GRUR 1989, 270– Heinkel [OLG Karlsruhe 1989].Google Scholar

OLG Saarbrücken, NJWE-WettbR 1999, 284– H&K GmbH [OLG Saarbrücken 1999].Google Scholar

Bundespatentgericht (BPatG)—Federal Patents and Trademarks OfficeGoogle Scholar

BPatG 03.04.2000, BPatGE 42, 275– Franz Marc [BPatG 2000].Google Scholar

BPatG 01.12.2004, 32 W(pat) 388/02– Rainer Werner Fassbinder [BPatG 2004].Google Scholar

BPatG GRUR 2006, 591– GeorgSimon Ohm [BPatG 2006].Google Scholar

BPatG GRUR 2008, 522– Percy Stuart [BPatG 2008a].Google Scholar

BPatG BeckRS 2008, 5314– Maya Plisetskaya [BPatG 2008b].Google Scholar

BPatG 29.10.2013, 27 W (pat) 72/12– Luciano [BPatG 2013].CrossRef Google Scholar

BPatG GRUR-RR 2014, 286– August-Macke-Haus [BPatG 2014].Google Scholar

Cologne

OLG Köln 29.04.1983 6 U 201/82– Tina Farina [OLG Köln 1983].Google Scholar

OLG Köln, 24.10.1986, 6 U 52/86– Rothschild [OLG Köln 1986].Google Scholar

Karlsruhe

OLG Karlsruhe, GRUR 1989, 270– Heinkel [OLG Karlsruhe 1989].Google Scholar

Saarbrücken