Candle eater
Partly
protectable.
Candle eater
Partly
protectable.
from
Can Kerzenfresser be protected as a trademark for candle products and lamps? What does it mean if your own product becomes a generic name? The Federal Patent Court provides answers.
What is a candle eater?
A candle eater is a container with a special wick. It is designed to collect and burn candle residue. It is a refillable permanent candle consisting of a heat-resistant container and a permanent wick. The term has obviously been common on the German market for years, sometimes under synonyms such as “candle residue eater”, “wax eater” or “melting light”.
The applicant, who had been seeking protection for the word mark “KERZENFRESSER” since 2022, manufactures precisely such products, including so-called concrete candles with a permanent wick. The problem: both the German Patent and Trade Mark Office (DPMA) and the Federal Patent Court did not consider the term to be a trademark, but rather a product description.
Why does the term fail as a trademark?
In his Decision of 13.05.2026 – Ref. 28 W (pat) 528/23 the Federal Patent Court analyzed the term in its two components: “Kerze” is self-explanatory and “fressen” is used in German not only in the literal sense of eating, but also in the figurative sense of consuming or using up. Classic examples are “electricity guzzler”, “memory guzzler” or “space guzzler”. This formulation is also common for fire and flames: flames are said to “eat” grass or an engine “eats” petrol.
From this combination it follows for the court that the designation “KERZENFRESSER” is directly understood as a factual indication, namely as a designation for a device that consumes or burns candle (residues). Such a descriptive meaning excludes trademark protection.
In this respect, the word combination applied for is linguistically customary and grammatically correct and consists of the designation of an object and an actor (cf. common word combinations such as car driver, water carrier, shoe salesman,
dishwasher and many more).
The chick in the jar: why “candle as candle eater” is not a contradiction in terms
The applicant argued that the term was inappropriate when applied to candles, because a candle that is a “candle eater” would be a “cannibalistic feeding” candle. However, the court did not accept this argument.
The special feature of the candle eater is that it is itself a candle that burns other candle residues. In its own application, the applicant claimed “wax-filled concrete vessels with a permanent wick”, i.e. exactly what is described as a candle eater. The apparent contradiction is therefore not an argument against the descriptive meaning, but proof of it.
One detail from the proceedings that got the applicant into serious trouble is particularly revealing: she had advertised her products herself with the slogan “Tidal fire – the original among candle eaters”.
It had thus used the term as a generic term and not as an indication of origin. The court considered this to be additional evidence that “Kerzenfresser” does not designate a trademark but a product category. Anyone who positions their product as the “original of a genus” confirms that this genus exists.
The need for explanation does not protect, it harms
The applicant argued that the term “Kerzenfresser” had to be regularly explained and was therefore distinctive. However, the court reversed this argument.
A descriptive term is often explained precisely when the function of the product is to be clarified. If someone explains what a “candle eater” is, this proves its factual meaning, not its peculiarity as an indication of origin. Trademarks, on the other hand, are usually not explained, as they refer to a manufacturer without describing anything themselves.
The surprising exception: Why fluorescent materials came through
Despite the extensive rejection, the appeal was successful in one respect: The decision of the DPMA for phosphors and their parts and accessories as well as the associated commercial services was revoked.
Phosphors are phosphorescent or fluorescent materials that store light or emit light when exposed to radiation. They have nothing to do with candles or candle residues. The court found that there is no descriptive link between the term “KERZENFRESSER” and this group of goods. A consumer who buys fluorescent materials will not understand the term as a product reference.
The result illustrates an important principle: the question of protectability is always assessed on a product-specific basis. The same term can be descriptive for one product, but not for another.
Conclusion
The ruling shows that anyone who successfully markets their product and coins a term in the process runs the risk of this very term becoming generic and thus no longer eligible for trademark protection .
Trademarks that are formed from an actor and an object also quickly run the risk of being rejected as unprotectable – at least if the combination contains a reference to the corresponding goods or services.
We are happy to
advise you about
Trademark law!
