LG Hamburg: German retains rights to the "Wordle" trademark

In Germany, both puzzle maker Stefan Heine and the New York Times hold the trademark rights to the popular online game Wordle. But the Attempt by the US newspaper to enforce its rights before the Hamburg Regional Courtfailed. The decision sheds light on the complex regulations of trademark law and the challenges associated with simultaneous applications and the accusation of filing in bad faith.

The strict principle of priority applies in trademark law. This means that older trademarks prevail over younger trademarks. It is particularly interesting to note that both trademarks have the same seniority in the case of same-day applications, without differentiation according to time. The burden of proof for applications made in bad faith lies entirely with the plaintiff, which is often difficult to prove in practice if the parties involved have had no previous contact.

The most important facts about the Wordle trademark dispute in brief

• Older brand winsIn principle, the older trademark wins in trademark law due to the principle of priority.
• Equal time rankSame-day applications are not differentiated by time; both marks have the same seniority.
• Burden of proof for bad faith registrationThe plaintiff must prove that the defendant registered his trademark in bad faith. This is rarely possible if the parties have no common history.

Decision of the LG Hamburg

In the Wordle case, the Hamburg Regional Court ruled that the New York Times Company does not have better priority rights to Wordle. Both parties, Stefan Heine and the US newspaper, had secured the German trademark rights on the same day, February 1, 2022. Therefore, they could not assert any claims against each other.

Priority principle and equal order of priority

The principle of priority states that the earlier trademark takes precedence over a trademark applied for later. However, as both applications were filed on the same day, no distinction was made on the basis of time. The court therefore ruled that both trademarks have the same seniority, which means that neither party is entitled to preferential rights.

Registration in bad faith

The New York Times had claimed that Heine had registered its trademark in bad faith in order to keep US competitors out of the German market. However, the court did not see sufficient evidence for this claim. As the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, the court had to dismiss the claim.

Continued existence of trademark rights

Both the publisher of the New York Times and Stefan Heine may continue to offer word puzzles under the name Wordle in Germany. However, the decision is not final, as the New York Times has the option to appeal. We assume that the US newspaper will try to convince the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court of Hamburg in the second instance.

Millions of users

The US newspaper acquired the rights to the letter puzzle from inventor Josh Wardle for 1.2 million US dollars. The game, which was invented in 2021 and made available for free on a private website, quickly gained popularity. Today, Wordle is a worldwide success and is played by millions of people every day.

Wordle gives users six attempts to guess a five-letter word. There are color cues after each attempt: Correctly placed letters are highlighted in green, letters that do not appear are highlighted in gray and incorrectly placed letters are highlighted in yellow.

Conclusion

The trademark dispute over Wordle shows the importance of priority rules in trademark law and the difficulties associated with the burden of proof in the case of bad faith applications. Both parties currently have equal rights to the trademark in Germany, but the outcome of the case remains exciting as an appeal is possible.

FAQs

What does the priority principle mean in trademark law?
The principle of priority states that the earlier trademark has priority over a trademark applied for later.

How is a decision made for same-day registrations?
In the case of same-day applications, no distinction is made according to time; both trademarks have the same seniority.

How difficult is it to prove a bad faith application?
It is very difficult to prove, as the full burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. In the past, the courts have only assumed bad faith if the parties were previously business partners and the trademark was clearly only registered in order to hinder the former partner.