Sometimes you find yourself surprised by events that you would not have thought possible.
Such as the current trademark mudslinging between 1. FC Heidenheim (Bundesliga – the first division of the German federal association football league) and FC Hansa Rostock (3. Liga – the 3rd division of the league). As a football fan and patent attorney with a penchant for trademark law, this is of course extremely interesting.
The background to the dispute is the trademark application ‘FCH Fanshop’ (UM 018950334) filed by 1. FC Heidenheim on 23/11/2023.
FC Hansa Rostock felt that this application restricted its rights. Hansa also invoked a demarcation agreement from 2008. According to press spokeswoman Marit Scholz, ‘the agreement stipulates, among other things, that 1. FC Heidenheim may only use the designation “FCH” in combination with at least the addition “Heidenheim 1846”’. The trademark application would violate this agreement.
Hansa therefore filed an opposition to Heidenheim’s European Union trademark application. The proceedings are currently still pending.
Heidenheim’s spokesman Markus Gamm told the Ostsee Zeitung newspaper: ‘The aim is, logically, to use this designation only in the context of our club name or our logo – and thus in clear distinction from FC Hansa Rostock.’
Such a statement may emphasise the good intentions of the Heidenheim club, but it is irrelevant to the scope of trademark protection.
Apparently, attempts at informal dispute resolution have failed so far, as Heidenheim has escalated the situation by registering the trademark ‘FCH’ with the DPMA (the German Patent and Trademark Office.
The Bundesliga leaguer justifies this step by citing older rights: FCH claims to have been founded as early as 1846. Hansa Rostock was only founded in 1965, according to a spokesperson for the Heidenheim football players.
At that time, however, it was not 1. FC Heidenheim, but the Heidenheim Sports Federation. According to its own website, the football players split off in 2007 and 1. FC Heidenheim 1846 was founded (15/06, retroactive to 01/01).
Against this background, Heidenheim’s argument appears more than questionable.
Heidenheim’s ‘FCH’ trademark was registered on 31/07/2025. The opposition period runs until 05/12/2025.
However, it is foreseeable that an opposition will also be filed against this trademark. At least, that is what I would recommend to Hansa.
It is also interesting to note that Hansa itself has two trademarks that can serve as a basis for opposition, namely the ‘FCH’ trademark (302018007745) and the ‘FCH Rostock’ trademark (30638116).
The outcome of the proceedings is open, but based on Hansa’s prior trademark registrations, at least a partial cancellation of the Heidenheim trademarks is to be expected. Whether and how an agreement between the parties to the dispute could be reached is open, especially as there could certainly be corresponding pressure from the clubs’ entourage.
So I’m getting the popcorn ready.