No protection

for mark with

TEAM.

17. August 2026

of

Clemens Pfitzer

The Federal Patent Court rejected the name “TEAM BEVERAGE” for most of the services covered by the application, even though an almost identical trademark is already registered for the same company. The decision illustrates how closely courts examine whether a name is appropriate for the services applied for, and why an existing prior trademark does not help in the case of a new application.

An Application for an Exceptionally Broad Scope of Protection

The applicant, referred to anonymously in the decision as “T… AG,” filed an application for the word and design mark “TEAM BEVERAGE” with the German Patent and Trademark Office on December 13, 2021.

The list of services claimed included, among other things, advertising and marketing, management consulting, financial and insurance services, telecommunications, transportation, educational services, and numerous IT services in Classes 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, and 42.

The Trademark Division for Class 35 of the German Patent and Trademark Office partially rejected the application by decision dated October 20, 2022. In its reasoning, the Office stated that “TEAM” is frequently used in business as a synonym for “company,” “BEVERAGE” simply means “drink,” and the combination constitutes a factual indication of a beverage company for the rejected services. In trademark law, distinctiveness means that a name must be capable of distinguishing a company’s products from those of other companies. In the DPMA’s view, this was precisely what was lacking. Nor did the graphic design change this; it was too common to confer distinctiveness on the name.

The Applicant’s Arguments

The applicant filed an appeal against the decision. She contested the assumption that “TEAM” is understood as a synonym for “company.” A team, she argued, refers to a group of people working together on a task, whereas a company is an economic entity with its own legal personality. Furthermore, “BEVERAGE” is not part of basic English vocabulary but is understood only by those in the field. The word combination has not been demonstrably used on the German market to date and is therefore sufficiently original.

Another argument was central to the case. The applicant already had an identical word mark, “Team Beverage,” registered (Ref. No. 30 2017 015 908), whose class classification was virtually identical to that of the mark applied for here. The rejection of the word/figurative mark thus contradicted the Office’s own registration practice.

Rejection with a narrow exception

In its decision of July 16, 2026—Case No. 30 W (pat) 505/23 —the Federal Patent Court upheld the appeal only to a very limited extent. The trademark applied for remained eligible for protection exclusively for retail services in the field of clothing, for the issuance of credit cards, and for the certification of educational services. For all other services in Classes 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, and 42, the Board dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the Trademark Office’s decision.

Is “team” really a synonym for “company”?

The Federal Patent Court (BPatG) expressly disagreed with the DPMA’s Trademark Office on one point. “Team” is not immediately understood as a synonym for “company,” but rather describes a company’s organizational structure or its mode of operation.

Despite this clarification, the judges ultimately upheld the Office’s position. “Team” has long been part of the German language and is immediately understood, including as a common advertising element in company names. The court referred to a series of its own previous decisions on comparable word combinations, including HELITEAM, DREAM TEAM, and Team der Lösungsfinder, in which distinctiveness had already been denied in each case. Contrary to the applicant’s view, “BEVERAGE” also belongs to the basic English vocabulary. The Board’s own research into advertising materials from the period prior to the application—such as references to a “Beverage Manager” or a “Beverage Expert”—showed that the term is directed at the general public and not merely at specialists.

Taken as a whole, this results in a linguistic unit that is conventional and immediately understandable.

According to the court, the fact that “Team” is more often placed at the end in German—as in “Fußballteam”—does not change this. Reversing the word order is in line with common advertising practice and is readily understood by the public.

Why was a mere connection to the industry sufficient grounds for rejection?

The second element of the decision concerns the standard for individual goods and services. A name does not have to directly describe a good or service in order to lack distinctiveness. It is sufficient if it suggests a possible area of use and customers immediately make that connection.

To substantiate this, the court conducted its own extensive research. For nearly every service that was rejected, the court found evidence that there are specialized providers in the beverage industry—such as a staffing firm focused on beverage manufacturers or a real estate agent specializing in beverage stores. Because such providers actually exist, customers interpret the name “TEAM BEVERAGE” in connection with these services as a reference to some kind of team specializing in beverages. This is sufficient to establish that the name lacks distinctiveness.

In the case of the three exceptions, it was precisely this close connection that was missing. Issuing credit cards is a completely ordinary banking activity with no particular connection to beverages. In the case of clothing retail and the certification of educational programs, it takes several mental leaps to establish any connection to the beverage industry at all. For this reason, the name remained eligible for protection in those cases.

Did its own earlier word mark, “Team Beverage,” help?

The applicant relied primarily on its own, already registered word mark “Team Beverage,” which covered an almost identical list of services. The court did not accept this argument. European and German courts have long held that even a completely identical, previously registered trademark does not bind the examination of a new application and does not even constitute an indication that the new application must also be registered.

For each application, the Office and the courts must determine anew, based solely on the law, whether a name is eligible for registration, regardless of previous decisions, including their own. This applies even if the earlier trademark was registered for the same applicant.

Even the reference to more favorable decisions by the EUIPO, the European trademark office, did not help. There, “Team” had been classified as distinctive in part because the term is not understood in countries such as Spain or Portugal. This does not apply to German customers, however, because “Team” has long been part of common parlance in this country. Due to differences in language proficiency across EU countries, the German Patent Office and the European authority examine such issues independently of one another.

The Federal Patent Court recently commented on this principle once again. In rejecting the name VARIOPILOT, the presiding panel also cited similar earlier trademarks and rejected them just as decisively. The same line of reasoning runs through the decisions regarding striped patterns for high-visibility clothing.

What does this mean for trademark applicants?

Where, in individual cases, the line is drawn between a harmless, merely remote connection to an industry and a close connection that precludes distinctiveness remains unclear. The court bases its assessment largely on its own internet searches, in which even a single finding was sufficient for an entire category of services. Had the search not yielded results elsewhere, the outcome could well have been different, which creates considerable uncertainty for applicants.

Practical Tips

• Do not rely solely on graphic design.
  According to established case law, varying font sizes, a two-line arrangement, or similar colors are not sufficient to confer distinctiveness on a descriptive word element. Those seeking certainty should design their marks in a more distinctive manner or prepare a trademark application early on, with a review by a lawyer.
• Realistically evaluate word combinations.
  Even a single piece of evidence of an industry-specific offering may be sufficient to establish a close descriptive connection. Before filing an application, it’s worth conducting your own research to determine whether specialized providers for the chosen word combination already exist.
• Do not define service classifications too broadly.
  The more general terms a registration includes, the greater the risk that a service falling under one of those terms will face a bar to registration, resulting in the rejection of the entire general term.
• Do not infer certainty from prior registrations.
  Even identical trademarks registered in the name of the same applicant do not have binding effect on new applications, and an assessment favorable to the EUIPO cannot automatically be applied to a purely German application.

Conclusion

We’d be happy to

you on

Trademark law!

Contact Form

Call now!