They have become an integral part of advertising: sounds that we automatically associate with the corresponding goods or services. Unlike normal image advertising, sounds affect our sense of hearing and thus strengthen our perception. Examples include the “Ricola” jingle and the “Tüdeldüdü” jingle used by Telekom. These sounds are already registered as sound marks with the German Patent and Trademark Office. Section 3 (1) of the German Trademark Act lists all signs that are eligible for trademark protection, including sound marks: “All signs, in particular […] sounds […] that are capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one company from those of other companies, can be protected as trademarks.” The sound mark has replaced the audio mark.

What is permitted?

In principle, all perceptible sounds are eligible for registration, i.e., not only musical sounds, but also spoken or sung words and purely noiseless sound images. However, there are exceptions to every rule, meaning that absolute grounds for refusal must also be taken into account for sound marks. The best-known absolute ground for refusal is lack of distinctiveness (Section 8(2)(1) of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG)), i.e. if the sound is not capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one company from those of other companies. This also means that purely descriptive information is never eligible for protection (Section 8 (2) No. 2 MarkenG). This applies in all cases and to all types of trademarks. In the case of sound marks, for example, the simple meowing of a cat cannot be protected for cat food. However, there is another special case to consider with sound marks: sounds that are inevitably produced by the goods or services, i.e., that are necessary to achieve the technical effect, cannot be protected (Section 3 (2) No. 2 MarkenG). This excludes, for example, the technically unavoidable noise of a printer.

Presentation of your sound as an mp3 file OR graphically

In order to ensure that the application is formally correct, either a graphic representation in standard musical notation on paper/JPEG file can be attached, § 11 (1), (2) MarkenV. Standard musical notation refers to a structured stave, i.e., with clef, note and rest symbols, and any necessary accidentals. Or, instead of the graphic method, a more contemporary approach: representation on a data carrier as an mp3 file. In this case, the graphic representation is no longer necessary. This is particularly practical for sounds that cannot necessarily be represented graphically.

Alternative (!) to the mp3 file: The graphic representation of your sound mark

If you still prefer the graphic representation, there are a few formalities to observe (Section 11 (3), Section 8 (2)-(6) MarkenV): Overlays or crossings-out that may be obstructive, as well as non-permanent color representations, are not permitted (Section 8 (2) MarkenV). The German Patent and Trademark Office has a form for the representation of the trademark, which must be enclosed with the application and on which the representation of the trademark must be printed or affixed. There are precise dimensions that must be adhered to for the representation: no smaller than 8 cm in width or 8 cm in height. Nothing else may be included in the field except, if necessary, the note “top” to indicate the correct position (Section 8 (3), (5) MarkenV). If you do not wish to use this form, you must use A4 paper, in which case the area used for the representation must not be larger than 26.2 cm x 17 cm and also not smaller than 8 cm in width or 8 cm in height. This sheet must be printed on one side only, and a margin of at least 2.5 cm must be left at the top and left-hand edge of each sheet (Section 8 (4) MarkenV).

Sound marks are the only type of trademark that are not perceived visually, which gives them a unique selling point and can greatly boost the marketing of your goods or services. We would be happy to advise and assist you with the registration process.

Franziska Becker

Jüdemann Rechtsanwälte

The post Trademarks – Sound Marks appeared first on Jüdemann Rechtsanwälte.

Warnings and Legal Actions – The confectionery distributor Wilmers, which is also conducting the proceedings before the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Cologne, is currently issuing cease-and-desist letters to retailers.

In its July 2025 decision (Case No. 6 U 65/25), the OLG Cologne prohibited a German food retailer from distributing or advertising a chocolate product under the label “Dubai Chocolate” in Germany if the product was not actually manufactured in Dubai or otherwise had no genuine geographic connection to the Emirate. The court made it clear that the term “Dubai Chocolate” constitutes a geographic indication of origin – not merely a fantasy name or reference to a particular recipe. This ruling has significant implications for the food and advertising industries and provides clear guidance on how to handle geographic origin claims in a globalized marketplace.

Background: The Dispute Over Origin

The claimant is a distributor specializing in the import of exclusive confectionery, including the product known as “B. Dubai Chocolate,” which is produced in Dubai by a licensed manufacturer. Distribution is managed via a service company based in Dubai, exclusively for the European market. The product gained widespread popularity—driven largely by TikTok trends and social media—commanding high prices both online and in brick-and-mortar retail.

By contrast, the defendant had a similar chocolate product manufactured in Turkey and marketed it under the name “Dubai Chocolate.” The packaging featured the iconic silhouettes of the Burj Khalifa and Burj Al Arab, along with English-language descriptions. The claimant saw this as misleading to consumers and filed for a preliminary injunction—initially granted by the Cologne Regional Court. However, the lower court later overturned the injunction, finding no risk of consumer deception. The claimant appealed—successfully.

OLG Cologne: Origin Is More Than a Recipe

The Higher Regional Court of Cologne overruled the lower court and held that “Dubai Chocolate” is a protected geographic indication under §§ 126 ff. of the German Trademark Act (MarkenG). According to the court, consumers would interpret “Dubai” not as a reference to ingredients (like pistachio cream and kadaifi pastry), but as a geographic origin. This interpretation is reinforced by the fact that the recipe was originally developed in Dubai and the media hype is explicitly linked to the city.

The court rejected the lower court’s assumption that “Dubai Chocolate” had become a generic term. A term ceases to be a protected geographic indicator only if the majority of the public no longer understands it as such. That was not the case here. The average consumer, said the court, expects a product labeled “Dubai Chocolate” to either come from Dubai or have undergone key production steps there.

The term “Dubai Handmade Chocolate” was always understood as a direct indication of origin. Consumers do not perceive it as a fantasy name or merely a recipe description.

Even a cursory reading of the name suggests that the public understands “Dubai” as referring to the Emirate or its capital city. Such labels are to be considered origin claims unless it is clearly shown that the term is used in a non-geographic or fanciful sense.

In this case, the origin of the recipe in Dubai—developed by Sarah Hamouda, founder of Fix Dessert Chocolatier—along with viral TikTok videos by influencers Maria Vehera and German food blogger Kiki Aweimer, strongly pointed to a geographic origin. These influencers tasted the chocolate in Dubai and shared their enthusiasm with millions of followers.

The initially high prices and limited availability in Germany also reinforced the consumer perception that this was a product of origin. Consumers were willing to pay premium prices and wait in long lines because they associated the chocolate with the exclusivity of Dubai (Jehle, GRUR 2025, p. 215, 220). Some even resold it at marked-up prices on online platforms.

Importantly, this desire wasn’t only due to the luxurious pistachio-based recipe, but also to the perception that the product originated from Dubai—a city associated with premium quality and luxury experiences.

Packaging and Marketing Reinforce Origin Misconception

The court also pointed to the packaging design as a factor contributing to consumer deception. It featured iconic Dubai landmarks such as the Burj Khalifa and Burj Al Arab, occupying a significant portion of the front design. Under EU law (Regulation 1151/2012), referencing a place of origin on packaging argues against a term being classified as generic (see Feta II, GRANA BIRAGHI cases). Thus, even if the image alone weren’t enough, the presence of the word “Dubai” on the package firmly linked the product to the Emirate in consumers’ minds.

Furthermore, the use of English-language packaging indicated an imported product. Consumers, especially in this context, would interpret it as originating from the place referenced—Dubai.

Misleading by Design – § 127 MarkenG

The court concluded that the packaging and presentation created a misleading impression of geographic origin under § 127(1) MarkenG. The use of Dubai’s skyline, English text, and a luxurious aesthetic all reinforced the impression that the product was imported from Dubai. Consumers, particularly with high-end products like this, are especially sensitive to implied origin claims, which suggest exclusivity and authenticity.

The defendant’s argument—that consumers understand that products are globally produced and ingredients don’t always originate from the named location—did not persuade the court. Even if pistachios aren’t grown in Dubai, consumers expect that the final product is at least manufactured or assembled there.

Unfair Competition – § 5 UWG

In addition to trademark law, the court found a violation of § 5 of the German Unfair Competition Act (UWG). Even if one were to interpret “Dubai Chocolate” as a mere description of the recipe, the packaging and advertising created a misleading impression of origin that could influence consumer purchasing decisions—making it unfair commercial practice.

No Security Required – Strict Standards for Importers

The defendant’s request to require a security deposit as a condition for enforcing the preliminary injunction was denied. The court found no risk of unusually high damages and no concrete harm to the defendant. By contrast, the claimant lacked the means to provide such security. Therefore, the court prioritized effective legal protection.

Significance of the Ruling

The OLG Cologne’s decision sends a clear message: Geographic origin designations remain legally protected—even in a globalized economy. Companies hoping to benefit from the image of a specific place must ensure that their products genuinely originate there, particularly when using premium pricing and exclusive marketing tactics.

The ruling also makes clear that viral popularity and extensive media coverage do not automatically turn a protected designation into a generic term. Such transformations are rare and must meet stringent requirements.

For the advertising and food industries, the takeaway is clear: Use of geographic names requires caution—especially when tied to well-known cities or regions. If the label says Dubai, it must actually be from Dubai.

The post “Dubai Chocolate” Must Originate from Dubai – OLG Köln Prohibits Misleading Indication of Origin appeared first on Jüdemann Rechtsanwälte.

1. Introduction: The Legal Grey Area of Reaction Videos

Reaction videos have become a staple of digital media culture. They shape public opinion, provide entertainment, and enable interactive engagement with content. From humorous commentary to in-depth analysis or political statements, the spectrum is vast. However, the apparent ease with which third-party content is integrated into these videos belies a complex legal landscape—especially concerning copyright and trademark law.

The judgment of August 29, 2024, is a landmark decision that clarifies and tightens the requirements for creators of reaction videos, particularly regarding the obligation to credit authors and the application of copyright exceptions. It demonstrates that the assumption that reaction videos automatically fall under a copyright exception is often a misconception. This article explores the core aspects of the judgment, expands on trademark implications, and outlines the comprehensive consequences creators may face if they fail to comply with legal requirements.

1. The Judgment of August 29, 2024: Detailed Copyright Analysis

The court’s order of August 29, 2024, concerning a preliminary injunction, provides valuable insights into current case law on reaction videos. The applicant, seeking to prevent the removal of three specific videos from the platform “E.” and to avoid copyright warnings, was denied relief. The court’s reasoning is crucial.

The court found that the applicant’s public accessibility of “third-party moving images” constituted a copyright infringement. These moving images are protected at least under § 95 of the German Copyright Act (UrhG) (protection of moving images as photographic works or similar representations) or as film works (§ 2(1)(6) UrhG). The use occurred without the rights holder’s consent. The applicant could not successfully invoke any statutory copyright exceptions.

1. The Decisive Role of Author Attribution (§ 63(2) UrhG) in the Context of the Quotation Right (§ 51 UrhG)

The core of the court’s reasoning is the denial of the quotation right under § 51 UrhG, the most important exception for using third-party works in reaction videos.

1. a) The General Rule of Complete Author Attribution
   51 UrhG allows the reproduction, distribution, and public communication of a published work for the purpose of quotation, provided the use is justified by the specific purpose. The court acknowledged that the requirements of this provision could, in principle, be met, as the applicant engaged with the content of the moving image excerpts and commented on them as part of their own expression of opinion. However, the decisive hurdle was the failure to comply with the “formal requirements” of § 63(2) UrhG. According to this provision, in cases of public communication, the source—including the author’s name—must always be indicated unless this is impossible.

The applicant had indicated the source of the used videos but did not name the author, which was necessary. The absence of author attribution was not justified. The entire quotation was thus unlawful.

1. b) Narrow Interpretation of “Impossibility” of Author Attribution
   The court emphasized that author attribution is the rule and its omission the exception. Such an exception only applies if attribution is “impossible,” and the burden of proof lies with the user. The user must specifically demonstrate what efforts were made to identify the author.
2. c) Extensive Duty to Research
   The court stressed the duty to actively research the author. It is insufficient that the author was not listed on the platform. The applicant should have, for example, contacted the channel operator via the provided email address to inquire about authorship. The applicant’s fear of political backlash was deemed understandable but not sufficient to render attribution impossible.
3. d) The Painer/Standard Exception
   The court distinguished this case from the ECJ’s “Painer/Standard” decision, where omission of author attribution was allowed because the secondary source was not permitted to name the author. Here, the applicant used the original source, so research was feasible.
4. e) Consequence
   Violation of the attribution requirement renders the use of the work entirely unlawful.
5. Pastiche (§ 51a UrhG): Between Legislative Intent and Restrictive Case Law

Another central point is the rejection of the pastiche exception (§ 51a UrhG), introduced with the implementation of the DSM Directive.

1. a) Broad Legislative Intent vs. Judicial Interpretation
   The German legislator intended a broad concept of pastiche to cover practices like remix, meme, GIF, mash-up, fan art, fan fiction, or sampling as key elements of contemporary digital culture. The court, however, followed the restrictive approach of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH), which sees pastiche as at least a catch-all for artistic engagement with a pre-existing work, possibly requiring humor, stylistic imitation, or homage.
2. b) Application to Reaction Videos
   The court found no artistic engagement in the applicant’s videos, only political commentary. Even if some humor was present, it was merely a stylistic device for commentary, not a protected artistic contribution.
3. c) Avoiding Redundancy with the Quotation Right
   The court argued that accepting pastiche in such cases would render the quotation right and its limitations obsolete, which was not the intent of the EU legislator.
4. Other Exceptions: Inapplicability to Pure Commentary

The court also considered other exceptions, such as reporting on current events (§ 50 UrhG) or caricature and parody (§ 51a UrhG), and found them inapplicable. The applicant did not caricature or parody the content but merely commented on it.

Key Takeaway:
Pure commentary or political engagement with third-party video material without full author attribution is unlawful and does not fall under broad copyright exceptions, especially not pastiche.

III. Trademark Law Challenges for Reaction Videos: A Deeper Look

In addition to copyright, reaction videos also pose significant trademark risks. Often, the content being reacted to features trademarks, logos, slogans, or even product placements.

1. Trademark Law Functionality and the Risk of Confusion

Trademarks serve to distinguish the goods or services of one company from another (§ 3 German Trademark Act, MarkenG). Trademark infringement occurs if a protected sign is used “in the course of trade” without the owner’s consent (§ 14(2) MarkenG). For professional creators earning revenue, this is typically the case.

Risks include:

• Identical or Similar Use for Similar Goods/Services: If viewers might believe the creator is affiliated with the trademark owner.
• Risk of Confusion: If the impression arises that the reaction video is from or authorized by the trademark owner.
• Exploitation or Detriment to Distinctiveness or Reputation: Especially relevant for well-known marks (§ 14(2)(3) MarkenG).

2. Limits of “Nominative Use” and Critical Reporting

Generally, the mere mention or depiction of a trademark for descriptive or critical purposes is permissible, provided it does not imply a business relationship with the trademark owner. However, the boundaries are fluid:

• Advertising Impression: Using a trademark in a way that objectively appears as advertising for the creator’s or third-party products crosses the line.
• Avoiding Defamation or Denigration: Criticism is allowed, but not unfounded negative statements that could constitute actionable disparagement.
• Risk of Confusion or Unfair Exploitation: If the use creates the impression of partnership or unfairly leverages the brand’s reputation, infringement may occur.

3. Practical Examples

• Prominent Product Placement: Reacting to an ad and repeatedly showing a product without critical engagement may be impermissible, especially if the creator also advertises products.
• Uncommented Logo Displays: Inserting logos as background or overlays without direct commentary may suggest exploitation of the brand’s reputation.
• Use of Slogans in Titles/Descriptions: Employing well-known slogans without direct critique may constitute unfair exploitation.

Trademark law assessments are highly fact-specific and require careful balancing of freedom of expression and trademark protection.

1. Comprehensive Consequences for Creators and Preventive Strategies

Non-compliance with copyright and trademark law can have far-reaching, even existential, consequences for creators, extending well beyond mere video deletion.

1. Civil Sanctions: Cost Risks and Damages

The most common first step by rights holders is a cease-and-desist letter. The creator is required to remove the content, sign a cease-and-desist declaration (often with a penalty clause), and pay the rights holder’s legal fees.

If the creator refuses:

• Preliminary Injunctions: As in this case, rights holders can obtain a quick court order.
• Main Proceedings: If necessary, a full trial may follow.

Damages:
Rights holders can claim damages, calculated by:

• License analogy: What a reasonable licensee would have paid.
• Actual damages: If provable.
• Surrender of profits: The creator must disclose and surrender profits from the infringement.

All legal costs can quickly escalate, especially with high-reach videos.

2. Criminal Implications

Copyright (§ 106 UrhG) and trademark (§ 143 MarkenG) infringements can also be criminal offenses, especially if intentional and commercial. Fines and even imprisonment are possible, though rare.

3. Platform Enforcement: Content ID and Strikes

Platforms like YouTube, Twitch, and TikTok use automated systems (e.g., Content ID) to detect infringements. Rights holders can block, monetize, or issue strikes. Three strikes within a set period (e.g., 90 days on YouTube) can lead to permanent channel deletion.

4. Reputational and Sponsorship Risks

Legal disputes or public cease-and-desist letters can severely damage a creator’s reputation, affecting both audience and potential sponsors.

5. Recommendations for Creators

• Strictly comply with attribution requirements: Always name the author and source; actively research if not immediately apparent.
• Assess the purpose of trademark use: Only use brands in a descriptive or critical context, not for advertising or reputation exploitation.
• Focus on original creativity and transformation: The more original input, the more likely an exception may apply.
• Use licensed or license-free material: Prefer Creative Commons or explicitly licensed content.
• Seek legal advice when in doubt: Especially for high-value or controversial content.
• Be cautious with political commentary: Pure political commentary on third-party content without artistic engagement is not protected by copyright exceptions.

1. Conclusion: The Evolution from “Digital Wild West” to a Regulated Space

The August 29, 2024, judgment sends a clear message to the creator community: The era of lax copyright practices online is ending. Reaction videos remain a vital format, but their creation now requires legal diligence and responsibility.

Active research, strict attribution, and a clear understanding of the limits of copyright and trademark exceptions are essential. Creators who embrace these challenges and take preventive measures can continue to thrive. Those who ignore the risks face severe civil, criminal, and platform-related consequences that could jeopardize their entire online presence.

The post Reaction Videos Rigths and Obligations – District Court Cologne 06.09.2024 – 14 O 291/24 appeared first on Jüdemann Rechtsanwälte.