NPD
as a trademark
SITTENWIDRIG.
NPD
as a trademark
SITTENWIDRIG.
from
The National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD), which is monitored by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, wanted to protectNPD as a trademark in Germany and has now failed before the Federal Patent Court.
DPMA rejects NPD as a trademark
The NPD applied to the German Patent and Trademark Office (DPMA) for the trademark “NPD” for various goods and services, including advertising, business management, business organization, business administration, office work, media work and public relations.
The DPMA rejected the application for these services. The trademark was contrary to accepted principles of morality in this respect, so that there was an absolute ground for refusal.
The word mark “NPD” is likely to offend the sensibilities of a significant part of the relevant public because the opinions and attitudes expressed in it have a disparaging or discriminatory effect on certain sections of the public or population groups.
The sequence of letters “NPD” is understood by the domestic public as a reference to the National Democratic Party of Germany. As the Federal Constitutional Court found in the second party ban proceedings, the party’s concept violates human dignity and the principle of democracy, as it is based, among other things, on the primacy of an ethnically defined “national community” that excludes and disparages certain social groups, in particular foreigners, migrants, Muslims and Jews.
NPD embodies defamatory, racist ideas that are in clear contradiction to the fundamental values and norms of the Basic Law.
NPD files a complaint
The NPD, which now calls itself HEIMAT, argues that the ban on its trademark application is not justified and is based on an incorrect assessment. It points out that political parties play an important role under constitutional law and that they must be guaranteed equal opportunities and freedom in their political work. A ban or discrimination against its trademark would contradict these principles.
The Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that no measures may be taken that endanger the existence of a party until it has been formally declared unconstitutional. The party manifesto may also not be used as a basis for discrimination, as this would not happen to other parties.
It is not convincing to take action against the trademark application just because there are demonstrations against the party. If this were an argument, other well-known trademarks such as “SIEMENS”, against which there are also demonstrations, would also have to be deleted from the register.
Furthermore, the argument that political parties do not need trademark protection because they are not involved in trade is wrong. Other parties such as “Bündnis 90/Die GRÜNEN” or “AfD” have also been granted trademark protection. Finally, trademark protection is necessary because the party name is also used by third parties, for example on T-shirts or other products. Previous attempts to prevent this via copyright or naming rights had not been sufficient.
NPD files a complaint
In its decision dated December 2, 2024 – 29 W (pat) 54/22 , the Federal Patent Court ruled that the sequence of letters “NPD” cannot be registered as a trademark as it is contrary to public morality. The decisive factor for this decision is the inseparable connection of the sequence of letters with the National Democratic Party of Germany, whose content and objectives were classified by the Federal Constitutional Court as inhuman and anti-democratic. The court considers the registration of the trademark to be a significant infringement of the feelings of a predominant part of the population.
In the court’s opinion, the trademark “NPD” reflects the party’s anti-constitutional content and goals, which are incompatible with the fundamental values of the free democratic basic order. This basic order is based on the principles of human dignity, the principle of democracy and the principle of the rule of law, which form the social consensus and the basis of coexistence in Germany. Protecting the trademark would contradict these fundamental values and significantly impair public sentiment.
The court expressly points out that the party privilege, which protects political parties from official intervention, does not preclude the rejection. This privilege does not release the parties from the general statutory regulations. Furthermore, it is clarified that the rejection of the trademark does not constitute an interference with freedom of expression, as the sequence of letters “NPD” does not constitute a direct expression of opinion and the only issue here is the protectability under trademark law.
In summary, the court finds that the trademark “NPD” is highly socially offensive and infringes the fundamental moral values and norms that are considered by the population to be an indispensable part of a democratic society.
A considerable part of the relevant public feels significantly disturbed by the application sign due to the anti-constitutional nature of the party, the (intended) violations of human dignity and democracy as well as its affinity with National Socialism and finds the sign offensive and inappropriate.
Conclusion
The decision of the Federal Patent Court makes it clear that trademarks associated with anti-constitutional or socially offensive content are not registrable. Trademark applicants should ensure that their signs do not violate public order or morality in order to avoid a rejection.
Questions on the topic?
We are happy to
advise you on
Trademark law!
