goods. The enquiries show that the registered owner has taken extensive measures to 
ensure the spread of the trade mark ‘Wiener Werkstätte’ in Austria and abroad, a fact 
which is also expressly admitted by the W.W.W. Company.... The enquiries thus lead to 
the certain conclusion that the words ‘Wiener Werkstätte' can be described as a com- 
monly familiär mark for the goods of the registered owner. 
At the present time the trade mark has been registered for more than ten years without 
having been disputed by a third party and without its existence having noticeably im- 
paired business dealings”. 
The reasons given by the ministry for the annulment of Krieser’s trade marks in this case 
corresponded to those of the proceedings of 1917/18, to which the ministry also re- 
ferred: “The trade marks which were declared to be legally invalid in these previous pro 
ceedings contain all the same major features as the trade marks now contested”. 
The proceedings were extensively reported in the Contemporary press, and several 
articles are therefore quoted in detail below, as disputes over trade mark rights awoke 
considerable interest. 
On 4th July 1924 “Der Tag”, Vienna, reported as follows (WWAN 83, no. 669): 
“W.W. versus W.W.W. / About a Company name ... Wiener Werkstätte G.m.b.H. is suing 
Wiener Wäsche=Werkstätte Krieser for damages for the illegal use of a deceptive Com 
pany name and is claiming damages of 800 million crowns. 
It is claimed that the defendant Hugo Krieser, a former employee of the Wiener Werk 
stätte, founded his own Company in 1917 after leaving the Services of the Wiener Werk 
stätte. He named his Company Wiener Wäsche=Werkstätte with the intention of exploit- 
ing the good reputation of the Wiener Werkstätte. The intent to deceive the public by 
wrongly identifying his Company with the Wiener Werkstätte is evident not only in the si- 
milar Company name, but also in the fact that in all business announcements, in adver- 
tisements, on business papers, etc. Krieser abbreviated the name of his Company to 
‘WWW’, leaving out his name. This despite repeated fines imposed by the Commercial 
Court. He had this abbreviation registered as a trade mark, but this trade mark has 
repeatedly been annulled, though this did not stop him from continuing to use it. 
The defendant disputes the sole right of the Wiener Werkstätte to use the Company 
name ‘Wiener Werkstätte’ in view of the fact that these words have a quite general 
meaning and are not sufficiently distinctive. 
The presiding judge declined to hear witnesses and announced that the judgement 
would be given in writing". 
The outcome of these proceedings is reported in the “Neues Wiener Tagblatt” on 15th 
July (1924?), not without regretting the loss of many “W’s” (WWAN 83, no. 678): 
“(W W or W W W ?) A court case was fought in Vienna last week which was not without 
humour, for all the ardent excitement with which it was waged. On the one hand the de 
fendant was a handicraft Company, the world famous ‘Wiener Werkstätte’, which pro- 
duces mainly knick-knacks, jewellery, ceramics, tableware, patterned silks, etc. de- 
signed by modern artists, on the other a clothing Company. Linen, shirts and underwear 
are its products, which, it transpired, seil very well. And its crime was a ‘W’. Whereas the 
plaintiff Company has marked its goods with two large ‘W’s’ for years, Herr Krieser, the 
clothing artist, wanted to outdo the Wiener Werkstätte by giving the m'ost delicate 
ladies’ underwear three warning W.W.W. as a trade mark. Herr Krieser was sentenced. It 
did not help him to Claim that a table-cloth and a centre-piece could never be mistaken 
for one another, or that there was a considerable difference between two W’s and three 
W’s. What a pity! How many W’s this will cost! And all that’s left is a single W which is 
capitalized in lamentation!” 
Apart from a few somewhat tendentious expressions such as “knick- knacks designed 
83