Expertise
Ms. Grüger's expertise is based on many years of practical experience as a lawyer, her professional competence as a specialist lawyer for intellectual property rights and her academic work as an author.
Professional expertise
- Lawyer, specialist lawyer for intellectual property rights
- More than 24 years of practical legal experience in intellectual property law
- Specialization in competition, trademark and design law already during assessor training (31st Civil Chamber, Cologne; Oppenhoff & Rädler, Cologne)
- International experience during his training through positions in London and Brussels (Eversheds Solicitors) and New York (Deloitte & Touche USA LLP auditing firm)
Scientific expertise
- Author of the commentary Kur / v. Bomhard / Albrecht MarkenG - UMV Markengesetz, Verordnung über die Unionsmarke(print edition and quarterly updated online commentary)
Expert opinions on the commentary:
"(...) Conclusion: The "Kur/v. Bomhard/Albrecht" is the most European and currently also the most up-to-date commentary on German trademark law. It offers German and European Union trademark law from a single source, and the authors also explain the provisions of German trademark law in the light of European Union case law. The commentary offers practitioners reliable orientation in the jungle of German and European casuistry, while academics will find brilliant analyses in some sections, especially of the EuGH case law. The commentary has quickly earned the status of a standard work."
Prof. Dr. Ansgar Ohly, Munich, in: GRUR 12/2017, on the 1st edition 2016
"(...) The unique concept of the biennial print edition, its constantly updated online version and the double feature of two commentaries on German trademark law and European Union trademark law is convincing due to the concentrated expertise of its many authors from all areas of trademark law."
Dr. Senta Bingener, Government Director, Munich, in: GRUR 3/2021, on the 3rd edition 2020
"(...) The first-class commentary on German and European trademark law is characterized by a high level of practical relevance with scientific penetration of trademark law, which is very important for commercial law."
in: juralit.de 06.10.2020, on the 3rd edition 2020Prof. Dr. Ansgar Ohly, Munich, in: GRUR 12/2017, on the 1st edition 2016
Cited in BGH case law (selection):
BGH, decision of 6.6.2019 - I ZR 212/17
ECJ referral on the calculation of the five-year non-use period in the event of a counterclaim for revocation of an EU trademark - "Irrigation sprayer"
para. 13 "...According to Article 129 II EUTMR, the EU trade mark courts shall apply the applicable national law in all trade mark matters not covered by this Regulation. The subject matter of both of the latter provisions is the substantive trademark law not regulated by the regulations (see Eisenführ/Overhage in Eisenführ/Schennen, UMV, 5th ed., Art. 101 para. 5; BeckOK Markenrecht/Grüger, 17th ed. [Std.: 1.4.2019], Art. 129 UMV para. 7)."
BGH, decision of 11.10.2017 - I ZB 96/16
Scope of an injunctive relief - "Products for wound care"
"Rn 43 ...Since the Community Trade Mark Regulation does not contain any conclusive provisions on the substantive scope of a prohibition order, the law of the Member States is applicable to this under Art. 101 II CTMR (BeckOK Markenrecht/Grüger, 10th ed. 1.6.2017, Art. 102 CTMR para. 17). It follows from both that, in the sense of a mere minimum harmonization, Member State courts are not prevented from attaching more extensive sanctions to an infringement of a Community trade mark than those provided for in the Community Trade Mark Regulation on the basis of their national law (BeckOK Markenrecht/Grüger, Art. 102 CTMR para. 19).
BGH, judgment of. 12.1.2017 - I ZR 253/14
Unfair distribution of bot programs for online games - "World of Warcraft II"
Para. 104 a) According to the case law of the ECJ, the obligations to compensate for the damage caused by infringing acts and to provide information about these acts in order to determine the damage do not constitute sanctions within the meaning of Art. 89 Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 (see ECJ, GRUR 2014, 368 para. 53 = WRP 2014, 821 - Gautzsch Großhandel/MBM Joseph Duna). The same applies to sanctions within the meaning of Art. 102 CTMR and Art. 102 EUTMR (cf. BGH, GRUR 2013, 1239 para. 68 - VOLKSWAGEN/Volks.Inspektion; BeckOK UMV/Müller, 3rd ed. [published: 25.8.2016], Art. 101 para. 10; BeckOK MarkenR/Grüger, 8th ed. [published: 1.10.2016], Art. 101 EUTMR para. 11).
Cited in literature (selection):
Berneke/Schüttpelz, The preliminary injunction in competition matters4th edition 2018
para. 70, footnote 30: "Art. 10/11 of the EU Directive distinguishes between injunctive relief and recall; in any case, in the case of EU trademarks and Community designs, the scope of the right to injunctive relief should be determined under EU law; according to BeckOK/Grüger, the right to recall is one of the other measures under Art. 130 (2) EUTMR, for which Art. 8 (2) Rome II Regulation is applicable. See also BGH previous footnote."
para. 759, footnote 68: "OLG Düsseldorf GRUR-RR 2017, 397 = MarkenR 2017, 368; BeckOK/Grüger Art. 132 para. 53 et seq."
Pohlmann, The law of the European Union trademark, 2nd edition 2018
Chapter 2. Acquisition and enforcement of the EU trade mark
para. 124, footnote 106: "→ § 17 para. 176 et seq. Cf. Kur/Grüger, EUTMR, Art. 100 para. 13 et seq. on the effects of conversion on infringement proceedings."
GRUR statement in the constitutional complaint proceedings 1 BvR 396/18
regarding the decision of the BGH of October 11, 2018 - I ZB 96/16 - Products for wound care (GRUR 2019, 1278)
para. 15: "Apart from this principle, however, there are certain ambiguities with regard to the substantive scope of Art. 130 II EUTMR. Should it depend on the interpretation of this provision, a referral to the ECJ would be appropriate for this reason alone. This is expressed in all commentaries on Art. 130 II EUTMR (see Eisenführ/Schennen, Unionsmarkenverordnung, 5th ed. 2017, Art. 102 para. 2; BeckOK UMV/Grüger, 18th ed. 1.7.2019, Art. 130 para. 15: "must be clarified by case law"..."
von Mühlendahl: Use and compulsory use - Calculation of grace periods in European and German trademark law - GRUR 2019, 25
"...When adapting § 22 MarkenG to the requirements of the Directive, it was - unfortunately - omitted to no longer refer to the publication of the registration of the later mark in para. 2 no. 2, but, as with the other provisions in nos. 1 and 3, also to the date of application or priority of the later mark (footnote 23).
Fn. 23: The commentary - still on the MaMoG draft - speaks of an "editorial oversight", BeckOK MarkenR/Grüger, 15th ed. 1.10.2018, Section 22 MarkenG para. 33.
For the question of the burden of proof, the same applies to § 22 MarkenG as to Art. 16 EUTMR (fn 24).
Fn. 24For the burden of proof under German law, see in detail BeckOK MarkenR/Grüger (fn. 23 above). BeckOK MarkenR/Grüger (fn. 23 above), § 22 MarkenG para. 28-31."
- Author of specialist articles in renowned specialist journals (GRUR-Prax, GRUR, MarkenR)
- Author of reviews of judgments (ECJ, BGH, EGC, German courts of first instance) in renowned professional journal (GRUR-Prax)
