What Germany's CP17 (EUIPO) Common Practice Means for Slogan Trademarks, Practical Guidance for Brand Owners and Counsel

The rules governing trademark slogans in Germany shifted on 16 February 2026, when the German Patent and Trade Mark Office (DPMA) began applying the EUIPO’s Common Practice CP17 on slogan distinctiveness. CP17 introduces a structured, factor-based framework that examiners now use to decide whether a slogan functions as a trademark or is merely promotional language. For brand owners, in-house IP counsel and trademark practitioners filing or enforcing slogan marks in Germany, this change demands an immediate reassessment of prosecution strategy, evidence collection and portfolio management. This guide distils the new framework into actionable steps, from drafting and filing through to opposition, cancellation and long-term portfolio planning.

Executive Summary, What Counsel Needs to Know Now

The DPMA’s adoption of CP17 is the most significant procedural development for trademark slogans in Germany in over a decade. Here are the core takeaways:

• New assessment framework. Since 16 February 2026, the DPMA applies CP17’s non-exhaustive factor list when examining slogan applications, replacing its earlier ad hoc approach to distinctiveness.
• Promotional function alone does not bar registration. CP17 confirms that a slogan’s typical marketing function does not automatically exclude trademark protection, but the slogan must still enable consumers to perceive it as an indicator of commercial origin.
• Evidence now matters more than ever. Applicants relying on acquired distinctiveness should prepare consumer-perception surveys, advertising-spend data and proof of long, continuous use before filing or responding to an office action.
• Pending applications are affected. The DPMA’s notice indicates that the new practice applies from 16 February 2026 onward, meaning applications still under examination at that date will be assessed under the CP17 factors.
• Enforcement landscape is recalibrated. Oppositions and cancellation actions involving slogan marks will increasingly reference CP17’s factor test, creating both offensive opportunities and defensive risks.

Industry observers expect the practical effect to be a more predictable, but also more demanding, examination standard for slogan filings across Germany.

What CP17 Is, and Why It Matters for Trademark Slogans in Germany

CP17 is the EUIPO Common Practice on the distinctive character of slogans. It was adopted unanimously by the EUIPO Management Board in November 2025 and subsequently published by the European Union Intellectual Property Network (EUIPN). Its objective is to establish a shared concept of what constitutes a “slogan” and to provide a non-exhaustive list of factors that IP offices across participating EU Member States use when assessing whether a slogan can function as a trademark.

CP17: Scope and Definition

Under CP17, a slogan is broadly understood as a short phrase used in a commercial or promotional context. The practice makes clear that the same registrability criteria that apply to other word marks apply equally to slogans, there is no separate, stricter standard. However, slogans present unique challenges because consumers are accustomed to encountering short promotional phrases in advertising without necessarily attributing them to a single commercial source.

The scope of CP17 covers both inherent distinctiveness and acquired distinctiveness (through use). It applies to national trademark applications filed at participating offices, EU trademark (EUTM) applications before the EUIPO, and is intended to promote convergence across the European Union.

Key CP17 Factors for Assessing Slogan Distinctiveness

CP17 sets out a non-exhaustive list of factors that examiners should consider when deciding whether a slogan possesses the requisite distinctive character. These factors include:

• Whether the slogan conveys an obvious promotional or laudatory message. Slogans that do nothing more than praise the quality or desirability of goods and services are more likely to lack distinctiveness.
• Whether the slogan is descriptive of the goods or services. A slogan that immediately conveys the kind, quality, intended purpose or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services may be refused under descriptiveness grounds.
• Whether the slogan contains unusual or original elements. Wordplay, unexpected syntactic structures, or imaginative combinations can tip the balance toward distinctiveness.
• Whether the slogan is short or long. Brevity may favour distinctiveness if the phrase is pithy and memorable; longer slogans risk being perceived as informational statements.
• Whether the slogan requires interpretation or triggers a cognitive process. A slogan that requires the consumer to pause and reflect, rather than immediately grasping a descriptive or promotional message, is more likely to be distinctive.
• The relevant goods and services and their market context. A slogan may be distinctive for one class of goods but descriptive for another.

Crucially, CP17 does not create a checklist where ticking a certain number of boxes guarantees registration. Each factor is weighed in context. The practical takeaway for counsel is to build the strongest possible argument across multiple factors rather than relying on a single element.

DPMA Implementation of CP17 (16 February 2026): Immediate Effects on Trademark Slogans in Germany

The DPMA published an important notice on 16 February 2026, confirming that it would implement CP17 from that date onward. This notice is the formal mechanism by which the Common Practice entered German trademark examination practice.

The DPMA Notice: Key Points

The DPMA’s notice confirmed that the Common Practice and its accompanying guidelines would be applied by DPMA examiners from 16 February 2026. The notice referenced the full CP17 document adopted by the EUIPO Management Board in November 2025 and indicated that the DPMA’s internal examination guidelines would be updated to reflect the new factor-based assessment.

While the notice does not have the force of statute, the underlying legal basis remains the German Trade Mark Act (Markengesetz) and EU Trademark Regulation (EUTMR), it represents an authoritative statement of examination practice. In practical terms, DPMA examiners are now expected to reference the CP17 factors in their reasoning, and applicants can cite CP17 in their prosecution arguments.

Immediate Procedural and Practical Changes at the DPMA

The following procedural shifts are the most significant for practitioners:

• Pending applications. Slogan applications that were filed before 16 February 2026 but had not yet received a substantive examination decision will be assessed under the new CP17 framework.
• Office actions and refusals. Expect DPMA refusal notices to reference specific CP17 factors. Applicants should prepare responses that engage with these factors directly.
• Consistency with EUIPO practice. Because CP17 is a convergence tool, DPMA decisions should increasingly align with EUIPO examination outcomes, creating opportunities for cross-referencing favourable EUIPO precedent in DPMA proceedings.
• No retroactive effect on registered marks. Slogans already registered at the DPMA are not affected by the new practice. However, cancellation petitions filed after 16 February 2026 may invoke CP17 reasoning.

Early indications suggest that the DPMA’s adoption will lead to more detailed reasoning in both acceptance and refusal decisions, which should benefit applicants who invest in well-prepared filings.

Can Slogans Be Registered in Germany After CP17? The Practical Test

The short answer is yes, slogans can still be registered as trademarks in Germany, provided they satisfy the same distinctiveness and non-descriptiveness requirements that apply to all marks. What CP17 changes is not the legal threshold but the structured way in which it is assessed. Below is a step-by-step practitioner test aligned to the CP17 factors.

Test 1, Distinctiveness vs. Marketing Language

The first question a DPMA examiner will ask is whether the relevant public would perceive the slogan as an indicator of commercial origin or merely as a promotional statement. A phrase such as “Best Quality Since 1990” is almost certainly promotional. By contrast, a phrase that uses unexpected wordplay or an inventive combination of ordinary words, creating a secondary meaning beyond the literal, stands a far better chance.

Practical tip: Before filing, test the slogan against competitors’ advertising. If similar phrasing is commonplace in the relevant industry, the examiner is likely to view the mark as non-distinctive.

Test 2, Descriptiveness Under Article 8(2)(2) MarkenG and Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR Analogies

A slogan that immediately conveys the kind, quality, intended purpose or other characteristics of the goods or services may be refused on descriptiveness grounds. The DPMA’s analysis here mirrors the EUIPO’s approach under the EUTMR. For example, “Fresh Daily” for bakery products would likely be descriptive, while the same phrase for software services would not.

Practical tip: Narrow the goods-and-services specification to classes where the slogan is not descriptive. A well-drafted specification can avoid a descriptiveness objection entirely.

Evidence of Acquired Distinctiveness

Where a slogan lacks inherent distinctiveness, the applicant may still obtain registration by proving acquired distinctiveness through use. Under CP17 and established DPMA practice, the following evidence categories carry the most weight:

• Duration and extent of use. Long, continuous use in the German market, documented by invoices, packaging and advertising materials.
• Consumer-perception surveys. Professionally conducted surveys (e.g., by recognised polling institutes such as Infratest or Forsa) demonstrating that a significant proportion of the relevant public associates the slogan with a single undertaking.
• Advertising expenditure. Detailed records of media spend, campaign reach and market penetration.
• Third-party references. Press coverage, industry awards or competitor acknowledgement of the slogan’s association with the applicant.
• Market share and sales data. Revenue figures and market-share reports tying the slogan to the applicant’s goods or services.

Counsel should compile this evidence proactively, before filing where possible, rather than scrambling to produce it in response to a refusal.

Filing and Prosecution Strategy for Trademark Slogans in Germany

A well-planned trademark prosecution strategy can significantly increase the likelihood of a slogan proceeding to registration under the CP17 framework. The following guidance covers each stage of the filing lifecycle.

Drafting the Mark and Description

• Choose word-mark format when possible. Filing a slogan as a word mark (rather than a figurative mark) provides the broadest scope of protection if registration is achieved.
• Avoid purely promotional wording in the specification. Do not describe the goods or services in language that echoes the slogan itself, this invites a descriptiveness objection.
• Select classes strategically. File in classes where the slogan is not an obvious description of the product. If the slogan must cover descriptive classes, prepare acquired-distinctiveness evidence in advance.
• Consider filing in both German and English. Where the slogan is in English and the relevant German public may not immediately understand it, this linguistic distance can support a distinctiveness argument.

Evidence and Survey Guidance

If relying on acquired distinctiveness, the evidentiary burden is substantial. Practitioners should:

• Commission a consumer-perception survey early. Allow at least eight to twelve weeks for design, fieldwork and analysis. Ensure the survey methodology is defensible before the DPMA and, if necessary, the Federal Patent Court (BPatG).
• Document use chronologically. Create a timeline of the slogan’s use with supporting exhibits, ideally notarised or time-stamped.
• Include digital evidence. Screenshots of website use, social-media campaigns and search-engine advertising can supplement traditional print materials.

Responding to Refusals

When the DPMA issues a refusal referencing CP17 factors, the applicant’s response should:

• Engage with each cited factor individually. Do not provide a generic rebuttal. Address the specific CP17 factor the examiner relied on and explain why the slogan meets the threshold under that factor.
• Cite favourable EUIPO and DPMA precedent. Because CP17 is a convergence tool, decisions from the EUIPO Boards of Appeal on comparable slogans are persuasive. Reference them by case number and highlight factual parallels.
• Submit supplementary evidence. If the initial application did not include evidence of use or distinctiveness, a refusal response is the opportunity to remedy this gap. Include a declaration summarising the evidence and attach exhibits.
• Request a hearing where appropriate. The DPMA offers oral hearings that can be used to present evidence and argument directly to the examiner, an underused but effective prosecution tactic for borderline cases.

Enforcement, Oppositions and Cancellation Strategy Under CP17

CP17 does not only affect registration, it reshapes the enforcement landscape for trademark slogans in Germany. Both rights holders and challengers will increasingly invoke the factor-based framework in adversarial proceedings.

Offensive Filing Strategies

Brand owners holding registered slogan marks can strengthen their enforcement position by:

• Filing evidence of enhanced distinctiveness proactively. Even after registration, maintaining a file of use evidence ensures the mark can withstand cancellation challenges.
• Pursuing oppositions against confusingly similar slogan filings. Monitor the DPMA and EUIPO registers for new slogan applications in overlapping classes. CP17’s factor test provides a structured basis for arguing likelihood of confusion.
• Sending cease-and-desist letters that reference CP17. A well-drafted letter explaining the registered mark’s distinctiveness under the CP17 factors signals litigation readiness and can accelerate settlement.

Defensive Monitoring and Watch Strategies

Trademark enforcement in Germany requires vigilance. Counsel should:

• Set up watch services. Use professional watch services covering the DPMA, EUIPO and WIPO Madrid registers for phonetically and conceptually similar slogans.
• Monitor industry advertising. Third-party use of a confusingly similar slogan in advertising, even without a trademark filing, can dilute rights and must be addressed promptly.
• Track DPMA and BPatG decisions post-CP17. Early decisions applying CP17 will shape the interpretive landscape. Monitoring these developments is essential for calibrating enforcement thresholds.

Cost-Benefit Thresholds for Litigation

Not every slogan dispute warrants full-scale litigation. Industry observers expect the following decision framework to guide counsel:

• High-value marks with extensive use evidence: Pursue opposition or cancellation proceedings at the DPMA and, if necessary, appeal to the BPatG. The investment is justified by the mark’s commercial value.
• Medium-value marks with limited evidence: Negotiate coexistence agreements or consent arrangements. A partial resolution avoids the costs and uncertainty of adversarial proceedings.
• Low-value or defensive filings: Consider voluntary narrowing of the goods-and-services specification rather than investing in opposition defence. Redirect resources to higher-priority marks in the portfolio.

Portfolio Management Decisions and Monitoring, A Practical Checklist

CP17’s implementation demands a portfolio-wide review. Trademark portfolio management for slogans should follow a three-point decision framework.

When to File Nationally vs. EUTM

The choice between a national German filing at the DPMA and an EUTM filing at the EUIPO depends on several factors:

• National filing advantages: Local evidence of distinctiveness (German surveys, German-language advertising) is most effective before the DPMA. A national mark is also less exposed to broad oppositions from across the EU.
• EUTM filing advantages: A single filing grants protection across all EU Member States. For slogans already in use pan-European, this is typically the more efficient route.
• Dual-filing strategy: For high-value slogans, filing both a DPMA and an EUTM application provides a fallback if one application encounters difficulties.

Renewals and Proof-of-Use Planning

Registered slogan marks must be renewed every ten years and are vulnerable to cancellation for non-use after five years. Counsel should:

• Maintain ongoing use evidence. Collect and archive specimens of use annually, packaging, advertising, digital campaigns, to ensure proof of genuine use is always available.
• Audit renewal deadlines against commercial strategy. If a slogan is no longer in active use, evaluate whether maintaining the registration is commercially justified before paying renewal fees.
• Plan for proof-of-use challenges. Under CP17, challengers may combine a non-use cancellation action with a distinctiveness challenge. A robust evidence file defends against both.

Comparison Table: CP17 Timeline and Obligations, EUIPO vs. DPMA

Action Checklist and Next Steps for Trademark Slogans in Germany

Brand owners and counsel should take the following immediate actions in response to CP17’s implementation at the DPMA:

• Audit your existing slogan portfolio. Identify registered slogan marks that may be vulnerable to cancellation challenges under the new factor-based framework. Ensure use evidence is current and comprehensive.
• Review pending applications. If you have slogan applications under examination at the DPMA, prepare supplementary arguments and evidence aligned to CP17’s factors before the examiner issues a decision.
• Update filing protocols. Revise internal trademark filing guidelines to incorporate CP17 factor analysis at the pre-filing stage. Include a distinctiveness self-assessment for every new slogan before submission.
• Commission consumer-perception surveys proactively. For commercially important slogans that may face distinctiveness objections, begin survey preparation now rather than waiting for a refusal.
• Establish watch services. Set up monitoring across the DPMA, EUIPO and WIPO registers for competing slogan filings in your core classes.
• Monitor early DPMA and BPatG decisions. The first wave of decisions applying CP17 will establish interpretive benchmarks. Track these to calibrate your prosecution and enforcement strategies.
• Consult specialist trademark counsel. The CP17 framework is new and its application in Germany will evolve rapidly. Engaging experienced counsel ensures your filings and enforcement actions are positioned for success under the new practice.

For assistance with slogan trademark registration, enforcement or portfolio review in Germany, find an IP lawyer in Germany through the Global Law Experts directory.

Sources

1. EUIPO, CP17 Common Practice: The Distinctive Character of Slogans (PDF)
2. DPMA, Important Notice of 16 February 2026 (CP17 Implementation)
3. EUIPN, CP17: The Distinctive Character of Slogans
4. EUIPO Trade Mark Guidelines, Section 2.5: Slogans
5. Hogan Lovells, EUIPO Published the New Common Practice on Slogan Distinctiveness
6. Erlburg Law, Brand Protection for Slogans?