The shape of a product can be decisive in ensuring that we immediately recognize it on the shelf. Some shapes are so well-known that they almost act as a trademark. But can a company “reserve” a certain product shape for itself – and where are the limits?
This was the subject of a recent case before the Regional Court of Stuttgart (judgment of January 13, 2026, Ref. 17 O 192/25).
Dispute over the square
The focus was on the well-known square shape of Ritter Sport chocolate. For decades, the company has seen the square as a central distinguishing feature of its products. The shape has been protected as a trademark since 1996.
The lawsuit was brought against the manufacturers of an organic oat bar called “Monnemer Quadrat”. This product was also offered in a square shape. Ritter Sport was of the opinion that consumers could associate the products with each other or even confuse them.
Decision: No trademark infringement
However, the Stuttgart Regional Court dismissed the claim.
The decisive question was whether an average consumer would assume that the products came from the same company or were economically linked. This is exactly what the court denied.
The square shape of Ritter Sport is very well known and has a high recognition value. Nevertheless, it is not just the shape that matters. The overall impression of the product is decisive.
According to the judges, the products differed significantly – for example in their specific design, their presentation and their positioning as a snack. From the consumer’s point of view, they were different products. There was also no unlawful exploitation of brand awareness.
In other words, not every square pack automatically belongs to Ritter Sport.
Why the overall impression is crucial
The ruling clarifies a central principle in trademark law: it is not every abstract design idea that is protected, but the specific shape in combination with all its defining features.
Even with well-known brands, a certain similarity is not enough. There must be a real risk that consumers will make a mistake or that the good reputation of the well-known brand will be deliberately exploited.
The court thus made it clear that there is still room for competition in the area of iconic product shapes. Companies are allowed to pursue similar design approaches – as long as they maintain sufficient distance.
Appeal announced
Ritter Sport has announced that it will take legal action against the ruling at the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court. A final clarification is therefore still pending.
The manufacturer of the oat bar has taken its product off the market as a precautionary measure and replaced it with an elongated version. This is to avoid possible economic risks – such as claims for damages or recall costs – if the next instance should judge the matter differently.
What companies should consider now
The decision shows: There are limits to the protection of product shapes. Even well-known shapes do not enjoy unlimited monopoly protection.
This means two things for companies:
Anyone developing a distinctive product shape should have it checked at an early stage whether it is legally protectable – as a trademark, for example. Only with a clear protection strategy can your own design be protected in the long term.
Conversely, anyone designing new products should take care to keep a sufficient distance from familiar brand forms. It’s not just about the pure form, but about the entire market presence: design, color, name, packaging concept and positioning all play together.
Especially in the food sector, where packaging plays a major role in purchasing decisions, design issues can quickly become legally relevant.
The proceedings in Stuttgart make it clear that product design is not just a marketing issue, but also a legal one. And the distinction between permissible inspiration and impermissible approximation remains a question of the individual case.
