Perhaps.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2002-03-29 03:46:27 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

contested trademark

Klaus is of course correct - but I did find that \"contested trademark\" is used about as frequently as \"disputed trademark.\"


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2002-03-29 04:11:30 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

infringed trademark (Seems to carry the idea of \"angegriffene\" Marke.)

I did a little digging, and here\'s a definition:

infringement (of trademark) - unauthorized use of a protected trademark or service mark, or use of something very similar to a protected mark. The success of a lawsuit to stop the infringement turns on whether the defendant\'s use causes a likelihood of confusion in the average consumer. If a court determines that the average consumer would be confused, the owner of the original mark can prevent the other\'s use of the infringing mark and sometimes collect damages. (http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/dictionary/dictionary_listing....



--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2002-03-29 04:26:41 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

More references from law.com (http://dictionary.law.com/):

trademark
n. a distinctive design, picture, emblem, logo or wording (or combination) affixed to goods for sale to identify the manufacturer as the source of the product. Words that merely name the maker (but without particular lettering) or a generic name for the product are not trademarks. Trademarks may be registered with the U.S. Patent Office to prove use and ownership. Use of another\'s trademark (or one that is confusingly similar) is infringement and the basis for a lawsuit for damages for unfair competition and/or a petition for an injunction against the use of the infringing trademark.


infringement
n. 1) a trespassing or illegal entering. 2) in the law of patents (protected inventions) and copyrights (protected writings or graphics), the improper use of a patent, writing, graphic or trademark without permission, without notice, and especially without contracting for payment of a royalty. Even though the infringement may be accidental (an inventor thinks he is the first to develop the widget although someone else has a patent), the party infringing is responsible to pay the original patent or copyright owner substantial damages, which can be the normal royalty or as much as the infringers\' accumulated gross profits.

HTH

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2002-03-29 08:22:41 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Some usage links:

At that time, my client had in inventory over $25,000 worth of products bearing the infringed trademark. (http://www.trademarkatty.com/articles.htm - middle of second para.)

If the infringed trademark is registered in Brazil with the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial – INPI), the chances of success will increase. (http://www.jurisnotes.com/articles/Brazil_Domain_Issues.htm - e.o. fifth para.)

Seizure is also designed to obtain proof of infringement, as in the case of description. Such an order may be made, for example, when the infringed trademark has been affixed to samples of products. (http://www.ngpatent.com/Inglese/industrial_law/legal_protect... - para. b.)

HTH

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2002-03-29 08:56:32 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

One last thought, and then I\'ll call it a night:
According to your context, the trademark is not in dispute here, as both trademarks are registered. The proceedings you\'ve described are about company-A alleging injury as a result of company-B registering a trademark that could cause confusion in the market.



--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2002-03-29 16:52:48 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

It\'s a new day, so why not do some more research . . .

It seems that I have the correct terminology, but that I have applied it in reverse:

angegriffene Marke = infringing trademark
Widerspruchsmarke = infringed trademark

Das Widerspruchsverfahren:
Nachdem die angemeldete Marke zur Eintragung gelangt ist, besteht für die Inhaber älterer angemeldeter oder eingetragener Marken innerhalb von drei Monaten nach Veröffentlichung der Eintragung die Möglichkeit, Widerspruch einzulegen ( § 42 MarkenG). Dem Widerspruch ist grundsätzlich mit der Löschung der angegriffenen jüngeren Marke stattzugeben, insoweit wegen ihrer Identität oder Ähnlichkeit mit der älteren Widerspruchsmarke und der Identität oder Ähnlichkeit der durch die beiden Marken erfaßten Waren oder Dienstleistungen die Gefahr von Verwechslungen besteht (§ 9 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 MarkenG).
http://transpatent.com/ra_krieger/markanm.html#widerspruch

Implicit.