Michael Alber

Michael Alber

Certified Specialist for Intellectual Property Law

Counsel in the Berlin office

Oranienstraße 164
10969 Berlin

Linkedin

Michael Alber

Certified Specialist for Intellectual Property Law

Counsel in the Berlin office

Oranienstraße 164
10969 Berlin

Linkedin

PRACTICE AREAS

Real Estate Law
Intellectual Property
Trademark and design law
Copyright & Media law
Competition law
Distribution-related antitrust law

EXPERTISE

Michael Alber in particular advises and represents clients in the areas of competition law and intellectual property law (trademark law, design law, copyright law) both on national and European level, in particular focussing both on effective and swift enforcement as well as the defence against injunctive relief by means of interim injunction proceedings. During his years of practice as a lawyer, Michael Alber was further able to collect extensive legal expertise in the area of distribution law, in particular regarding the relevant aspects of German and European antitrust provisions. In addition, he has developed a particular affinity and legal expertise for issues of construction and architectural law with special focus on the real estate development business. His clients comprise both German and foreign corporations from a wide variety of sectors.

Prior to joining von BOETTICHER in November 2018, Michael Alber has been working as an Associated Partner for the corporate law firm GÖRG within their service line “IP/IT, Commercial”.

Languages: German, English

PUBLICATIONS

  • Article on: The Flying Jurisdiction – Farewell to an Institution of Competition Law („Der fliegende Gerichtsstand – Abschied von einer Institution des Wettbewerbsrechts?“), in German Law publication “Der IP-Rechts-Berater” (IPRB) 2021, 112-117;
  • Article on: Environmental protection and social responsibility as a selling point („Umweltschutz und soziale Verantwortung als Verkaufsargument“), in German Law publication “Der IP-Rechts-Berater” (IPRB) 2021, 12-17;
  • Article on: The legally prescribed reimbursability of the costs of the involvement of patent attorneys in trade mark disputes („Die gesetzlich verordnete Erstattungsfähigkeit der Kosten der Mitwirkung von Patentanwälten in Kennzeichenstreitsachen nach dem MarkenG“), in German Law publication “Der IP-Rechts-Berater” (IPRB) 2020, 184-188;
  • Comment on: Higher Regional Court of Munich decision (29 U 6389/19) of July 30, 2020 on No trade connotation of a gold colour box when used in conjunction with chocolate bunnies in only one particular design („Keine Verkehrsgeltung eines Goldfarbkartons bei Benutzung in Verbindung mit Schokoladenhasen in nur einer bestimmten Formgebung“), in German Law publication “Der IP-Rechts-Berater” (IPRB) 2021, 3-5;
  • Comment on: German Federal Court of Justice decision (I ZB 42/19) of July 23, 2020 on Protectability of chocolate wrapping under trademark law („Markenrechtliche Schutzfähigkeit einer Schokoladenverpackung – Quadratische Tafelschokoladenverpackung II“), in German Law publication “Der IP-Rechts-Berater “(IPRB) 2020, 271-272;
  • Comment on: Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt decision (6 W 15/20) of April 16, 2020 on How to get patent attorney’s costs reimbursed in design disputes („Erstattungsfähigkeit von Patentanwaltskosten in Designsachen“), in German Law publication “Der IP-Rechts-Berater” (IPRB) 2020, 199-201;
  • Comment on: Higher Regional Court of Hamburg decision (15 U 91/19) of February 6, 2020 on Cleaning costs of a holiday apartment as part of the total purchase price („Reinigungskosten einer Ferienwohnung als Teil des Gesamtpreises nach der PAngV“), in German Law publication “Der IP-Rechts-Berater” (IPRB) 2020, 253-255;
  • Comment on: Federal Patent Court decision (29 W (pat) 41/17) of January 10, 2020 on Trade with own goods or with goods of the own licensor not constituting retail service in the sense of trade mark law („Handel mit Eigenware bzw. mit Waren des eigenen Lizenzgebers stellt keine Einzelhandelsdienstleistung im markenrechtlichen Sinne dar“), in German Law publication “Der IP-Rechts-Berater” (IPRB) 2020, 151-152;
  • Comment on: German Federal Court of Justice decision (I ZR 46/19) of October 23, 2019 on Abuse of formal legal position by owner of trademark rights („Missbräuchliche Ausnutzung einer formalen Rechtsstellung durch Kennzeichenrechtsinhaber“), in German Law publication “Der IP-Rechts-Berater” (IPRB) 2020, 154-155;
  • “Trademark use and validity of a gold color box for chocolate bunnies”, comment on LG Munich I, final judgment of 15.1.2019 – 33 O 13884/18, “Der IP-Rechts-Berater” (IPRB) 2020, 31-33;
  • Article on: Commercial use of real estate contradictory to building and regulatory provisions as a violation of the German Act Against Unfair Competition („Gewerbliche Immobiliennutzung im Widerspruch zu bau- und ordnungsrechtlichen Vorschriften als Wettbewerbsverstoß i.S.d. UWG“), in German law publication “Der IP-Rechts-Berater” (IPRB) 2019, 129-133;
  • Article on: Selective distribution systems – Antitrust law issues regarding the prohibition of distributing brand products via Internet trading platforms („Selektive Vertriebssysteme – Kartellrechtliche Fragestellungen bei der Untersagung des Vertriebs von Markenartikeln über Internethandelsplattformen“), “Der IP-Rechts-Berater” (IPRB) 2019, 55-59;
  • “Trademark infringement by refilling a container with goods of another manufacturer”, comment on BGH, judgment of October 17, 2018 – I ZR 136/17, “Der IP-Rechts-Berater” (IPRB) 2019, 195-197;
  • „Keine Bösgläubigkeit i.S.d. § 8 Abs. 2 Nr. 10 MarkenG a.F. bei Anmeldung von bekanntem Filmtitel für diverse Event- und Partydienstleistungen der Nizzaer Klasse 43“, Anmerkung zu OLG München, Urteil vom. 15.3.2018 – 6 U 2797/17, Der IP-Rechts-Berater (IPRB) 2019, 174-175;
  • “No trademark use of the sign “Pыжик” for the sale of cake bases”, comment on OLG Stuttgart, judgment of 10.1.2019 – 2 U 85/18, Der IP-Rechts-Berater (IPRB) 2019, 148-149;
  • “Registrability of the word mark ‘Plombir’ for various foodstuffs in Nice classes 29 and 30”, comment on ECJ, judgment of 13.12.2018 – T-830/16, “Der IP-Rechts-Berater” (IPRB) 2019, 123-124;
  • “Berufung auf den Unclean-hands Einwand im Wettbewerbsrecht”, comment on OLG Hamm, judgment of 22.11.2018 – 4 U 73/18, “Der IP-Rechts-Berater” (IPRB) 2019, 74-76;
  • “Trademark exhaustion in the case of multiple trademarks on the reseller’s shipping carton”, comment on BGH, judgment of June 28, 2018 – I ZR 221/16, “Der IP-Rechts-Berater” (IPRB) 2019, 50-52;
  • Comment on: Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe decision (6 U 161/16) of April 13, 2018 on IPR regarding employee inventions („IPR bei internationalen Arbeitnehmererfindungen“), in German law publication “Der IP-Rechts-Berater” (IPRB) 2019, 31-33;
  • “Cancellation proceedings: Sufficient distinctiveness of the mark ‘Pippi Langstrumpf’ for goods and services in classes 41 and others”, comment on BGH, judgment of 13.9.2018 – I ZR 25/17, “Der IP-Rechts-Berater” (IPRB) 2019, 30-31;
  • “Misleading about belonging to a product category”, comment on BGH, judgment of 21.06.2018 – I ZR 157/16, “Der IP-Rechts-Berater” (IPRB) 2019, 7-8.

QUALIFICATIONS

  • Legal studies at the University of Giessen and the Free University of Berlin, Germany
  • Admitted to the German bar in 2012
  • Certified Specialist for Intellectual Property Law since 2020

NEWS