{"id":72024,"date":"2026-11-06T18:14:08","date_gmt":"2026-11-06T16:14:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/?p=72024"},"modified":"2026-11-06T18:14:05","modified_gmt":"2026-11-06T16:14:05","slug":"ritter-sport-monnemer-quadrat-stuttgart-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lhr-law.de\/en\/magazine-en\/trademark-law\/ritter-sport-monnemer-quadrat-stuttgart-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Ritter Sport v \u201cMonnemer Quadrat\u201d: Stuttgart Higher Regional Court finds oat-bar packaging infringes shape mark"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"TwoAn oat bar in a square package, an advertising line that begins with \u201cQuadratisch\u201d (\u201csquare\u201d), and a chocolate brand known for exactly that. In January the Regional Court of Stuttgart still saw no trademark infringement.<\/em><\/p>\n

On 5 November 2026 the Higher Regional Court overturned that judgment. Why a package with no printing on it can be enough to cause trouble, and what manufacturers should take from this for their own packaging.<\/em><\/p>\n

On 5 November 2026 the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart (Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart, 2nd Civil Senate) decided the dispute over the \u201cMonnemer Quadrat\u201d, case no. 2 U 3\/26<\/a>. The claimant was the chocolate maker Ritter Sport from Waldenbuch; the defendant was Wacker, a company from Mannheim that makes snacks without artificial additives. Since November 2024 Wacker has sold two organic oat bars (cocoa-hazelnut and coconut-almond) in a square package with side closure flaps, advertised with the line \u201cQuadratisch. Kokos. Klar.\u201d. According to the reports by LTO<\/a> and beck-aktuell<\/a> (both in German), Wacker must stop selling in that package. The judgment is not yet final.<\/p>\n

What is a shape mark, and what does it protect here?<\/h2>\n

Ritter Sport based its claim on a German three-dimensional trademark. According to the press release of the Regional Court of Stuttgart, it protects \u201ca three-dimensional packaging body with a square base\u201d (our translation) with two flat closure flaps along the sides, a fine zigzag pattern on the outer edge and three slightly larger points in the middle. It is a blank package: no logo, no colour, no lettering. Whoever copies it copies no name but an overall impression.<\/p>\n

Whether the mark was rightly registered was not at issue. The senate pointed out that it is bound by the existing registration, which the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) has confirmed. We have reported on the square as a trademark before, for example in \u201cDas Quadrat ist eine Marke<\/a>\u201d and \u201cDas Gras ist immer etwas lilaner auf der anderen Seite des Zaunes \u2013 Mondelez gegen Ritter Sport<\/a>\u201d (both in German). On 18 October 2017 the BGH held (I ZB 105\/16<\/a>) that the square shape is not an essential functional characteristic of chocolate, and on 23 July 2020 (I ZB 42\/19<\/a> and I ZB 43\/19<\/a>) it dismissed the appeals on points of law in the cancellation proceedings. The mark stayed on the register. We found no more recent BGH or higher regional court decisions on square packaging shapes.<\/p>\n

Why had the Regional Court dismissed the claim?<\/h2>\n

On 13 January 2026 the 17th Civil Chamber of the Regional Court of Stuttgart dismissed the claim (17 O 192\/25<\/a>). Bar chocolate and oat bars were not identical goods, it said, and consumers perceive them as different snacks. What mattered was the plain tubular-bag packaging without printing, and that looked \u201cpurely visually like a rectangle\u201d (our translation), with wider closure flaps. There was no exploitation of reputation, and the advertising line did not matter because it was not part of the subject matter of the dispute.<\/p>\n

We consider that assessment open to attack. Anyone comparing packaging without any lettering is ultimately asking only about its look and feel, and the look and feel of a square with zigzag flaps is already taken in confectionery.<\/p>\n

What did the Higher Regional Court see differently?<\/h2>\n

The court found a likelihood of confusion under section 14(2) no. 2 of the German Trade Mark Act (Markengesetz, MarkenG)<\/a>. The provision requires a sign identical or similar to the mark, used for identical or similar goods, and a likelihood of confusion which, according to the statute, includes the likelihood that the sign is associated with the mark. According to the reports, the senate assumed average similarity of the goods and above-average similarity of the packaging, with a very high distinctiveness of the earlier mark, and it could not find any weakening of that distinctiveness. According to the reporting by beck-aktuell, the presiding judge had already indicated in October that an infringement existed.<\/p>\n

The senate also affirmed protection of a well-known mark under section 14(2) no. 3 MarkenG. Under it, use of a similar sign is prohibited where the mark is known in Germany and the use takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, its distinctive character or repute without due cause. The shape mark exerted considerable pull, into which the oat-bar maker had deliberately moved, and it had no legitimate interest. That oat bars and chocolate are different products did not help Wacker. The court regarded the slogan \u201cQuadratisch. Kokos. Klar.\u201d as an obvious allusion to \u201cQuadratisch. Praktisch. Gut.\u201d and therefore as confirming the unfair exploitation.<\/p>\n

What does Wacker face now?<\/h2>\n

According to LTO, the bar may no longer be sold in the square shape, goods in circulation must be recalled, information on sales and revenue must be given, and Wacker owes damages under section 14(6) MarkenG. Damages require intent or negligence and can also be calculated on the basis of the infringer\u2019s profit or by way of a reasonable licence fee. For now the product has been replaced by an elongated bar called \u201cMonnemer Klageriegel\u201d (roughly, \u201clawsuit bar\u201d). Humour rarely hurts in trademark disputes, but it does not extend an appeal deadline.<\/p>\n

The court did not allow an appeal on points of law. Wacker can lodge a complaint against denial of leave to appeal with the BGH within one month of service and has announced that it will. We rate its chances as low. Likelihood of confusion and exploitation of reputation are overall assessments by the trial courts, and the registration of the mark has survived the cancellation proceedings all the way to the BGH.<\/p>\n

What should manufacturers and traders check now?<\/h2>\n