”
Decision of the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Frankfurt am Main
\n\n
The Higher Regional Court (OLG) Frankfurt am Main addressed the question of whether a company may apply to have its company name registered in the commercial register in uppercase letters (block capitals). According to the decision, registering a company name in block capitals is generally permissible.
\n
Starting point: Registrability of the company name in block capitals
\n
Application for registration and objection
\n\n
The subject of the proceedings was a commercial register application in which the company name was shown in uppercase letters. In the context of the register-law review, the question arose whether the design related to spelling—specifically, the exclusive use of block capitals—must be treated as an obstacle to registration.
\n
Standard for the register court’s review
\n\n
In register proceedings, it is examined whether the applied-for company name complies with the requirements of company-name law and whether there are any reasons that prevent registration. The focus is, in particular, on whether the company name is suitable for identification and whether it distinguishes itself in a permissible manner from designations already registered.
\n
Key statements of the decision
\n
Uppercase lettering as a permissible spelling
\n\n
The OLG Frankfurt am Main clarified that the use of block capitals, in and of itself, does not constitute a ground for refusal of registration. According to this, spelling in uppercase letters does not change the fact that the name may be a company name that is, in principle, capable of registration.
\n
Distinction from differentiating features relevant under company-name law
\n\n
The decision also makes clear that the question of distinctiveness is not answered solely by typographic variants of spelling. What remains decisive is whether, in terms of its defining content, the company name is suitable to prevent confusion in legal and commercial dealings. Mere presentation in uppercase letters is generally not treated as an independent distinguishing feature.
\n
Significance for register practice
\n
Registration practice and formal design
\n\n
The decision classifies uppercase lettering as a permissible form of presentation. This underscores that formal spellings cannot readily be relied upon as an obstacle in the register context as long as the requirements under company-name law are otherwise met.
\n
Classification within the principles of company-name law
\n\n
The decision aligns with the general approach that the legal substance of a company name and its suitability for individualization are decisive. By contrast, typographic designs are generally of secondary importance, insofar as they do not, in an individual case, give rise to deception or a relevant likelihood of confusion.
\n
Legal context and case-specific reference
\n\n
Decisions under register law are always tailored to the specific circumstances of the respective registration proceedings. The assessment of the company name—including issues of distinctiveness and permissibility—depends on the factual circumstances and the register inventory in the relevant register district.
\n
Contact for questions under corporate law
\n\n
Anyone wishing to clarify corporate-law issues in connection with the selection, design, or filing of a company name may contact MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte for legal advice in corporate law.
“
