The Trade Mark-Protected “Ritter Sport Square”

On 14 January 2026, the Regional Court of Stuttgart (LG Stuttgart) ruled at first instance on an alleged trade mark conflict between the iconic, trade mark-protected square packaging of Ritter Sport chocolate bars and the square oat bar “Monnemer Quadrat Bio” produced by bleib wacker.

Ritter Sport was unsuccessful. The Mannheim-based family company may therefore continue to market its oat bars for the time being.

Background and Decision

The claimant, Alfred Ritter GmbH & Co. KG, has been selling square chocolate bars for decades and has held trade mark rights in the three-dimensional packaging of its 100-gram bars since 1996. The defendant produces square oat and muesli bars. Ritter Sport considered both the square shape of the packaging and the use of the term “Quadrat” in the product name to constitute a trade mark infringement and sought injunctive relief on the grounds of likelihood of confusion.

After settlement negotiations failed, the Regional Court of Stuttgart dismissed the action. In the court’s view, there was no likelihood of confusion. A decisive factor was the lack of similarity between the goods: from the perspective of the relevant public, chocolate bars and oat or muesli bars are neither identical nor sufficiently similar products.

Chocolate is primarily perceived as a confectionery product, whereas muesli bars are regarded more as an “energy snack with a healthy image”. In addition, the products are typically displayed separately in retail environments and differ significantly in their main ingredients.

The court also found sufficient differences in the packaging design. Due to its overall appearance – in particular the wide closing flaps – the “Monnemer Quadrat” packaging appears more rectangular. Moreover, there are numerous other confectionery products on the market with square or nearly square shapes. Consumers therefore do not automatically associate every square package with Ritter Sport.

Finally, Ritter Sport was also unable to rely successfully on the enhanced protection afforded to well-known trade marks. According to the court, the oat bar packaging neither took unfair advantage of the distinctive character or reputation of the well-known mark nor caused any detriment to it.

What Does This Mean in Practice?

Whether the decision of the Regional Court will bring lasting “peace to the square” remains to be seen. Given the significance of the case, it is likely that the claimant will lodge an appeal, meaning that legal uncertainty may persist for the muesli bar manufacturer.

The decision highlights the complexity of trade mark assessments. A likelihood of confusion is not always obvious; rather, legitimate interests on both sides often require a careful, case-by-case analysis.

Companies should therefore seek advice on potential conflicts with existing trade mark, design or patent rights at an early stage of product development, in order to avoid having legal disputes and commercial risks resolved only before the courts.