A bear is not a beer
Gummy bears: a globally beloved confectionery.
Gummy bears were invented by German confectioner and Haribo founder Hans Riegel, and have gained worldwide recognition under the name Goldbears. Why Goldbears? The original packaging was gold-colored to give the candy a premium appearance.
Recently, the German confectionery brand GOLDBEARS (known in Germany as Goldbären) encountered a European trademark application for the figurative mark GOLDBEER for beers.
A different kind of "gold" and certainly not as chewy as gummy bears, but Haribo still considered the beer trademark too similar and filed an opposition. The opposition was based on two grounds: likelihood of confusion and the well-known status (reputation) of the GOLDBEARS trademark.
The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) first assessed the similarity of the goods. To establish a likelihood of confusion, the goods—beer and candy—must be considered similar. This is where Haribo’s case faltered. The EUIPO's decision was clear: the goods were not similar. They differ in nature, distribution channels, and target consumers. As a result, there was no risk of confusion.
Haribo also invoked the well-known status of its mark. Well-known trademarks benefit from broader protection and can be enforced against dissimilar goods, provided their reputation is established. This could have been a strong argument, but Haribo needed to provide sufficient proof.
The company submitted various pieces of evidence, asserting that its mark was well-known in Germany. However, the EUIPO disagreed. A market survey is considered strong evidence of reputation, but the one submitted dated back to 2012 and therefore outdated. Other submitted evidence also failed to convince: a recent German ruling recognizing the trademark’s reputation was taken into account but was not deemed decisive, as the German trademark office follows a different procedural approach than the EUIPO. Furthermore, crucial data such as revenue figures, market share and recent use examples were missing.
As a result, the EUIPO concluded that while the brand may have once been well-known, the current evidence failed to establish its continued reputation. The opposition was rejected. However, Haribo still has the option to appeal and submit additional evidence in an attempt to secure a different outcome.
Author: Matthias Van Den Broek
Bio: Matthias van den Broek is a trademark attorney and specialist in advising in online brand protection and domain name disputes. His client portfolio includes well-known names in the financial sector, ranging from crypto startups to market makers. Matthias enjoys writing about current intellectual property issues, with an affinity for design law.