Apple successful: no registration of "MI PAD"

For years, the US company Apple and the Chinese company Xiaomi have been disputing whether the word mark MI PAD may be registered as a Union mark or not. The General Court (EuG) says no.

In 2014, the Chinese company Xiaomi filed the word mark "MI PAD" as a Union mark for electronic devices and services in (tele-)communication.

Apple filed an opposition to the registration of the sign. Apple is the proprietor of the earlier mark "IPAD", which is registered for identical or similar goods and services.

The EUIPO upheld the opposition. In the opinion of the EUIPO, the signs are characterised by a considerable degree of similarity. The EUIPO found a likelihood of confusion to exist. The relevant public would regard the mark MI PAD as a variant of the mark IPAD.

Xiaomi challenged this by bringing proceedings for annulment of the EUIPO's decision.

The decision of the General Court (EuG)

Xiaomi's action was unsuccessful. The General Court (EuG) dismissed the action by judgment of 05.12.2017 – Az. T-893/16 and upheld the EUIPO's decision.

The General Court (EuG) also found a high degree of similarity with regard to the visual appearance. IPAD is completely contained in MI PAD and the signs have the letter sequence "ipad" in common. The signs differ only by the additional letter "m" at the beginning of MI PAD.

For the comparison in terms of sound and meaning, the court differentiated between the English-speaking and non-English-speaking public. For both, it found the signs to be too similar.

Finally, the court also confirmed the existence of a likelihood of confusion. The additional letter "m" at the beginning of MI PAD is insufficient to offset the high degree of visual and phonetic similarity.

Conclusion

Apple was successful in defending itself against the registration of MI PAD as a Union mark. Whether the judgment becomes final remains to be seen. There is still the possibility that an appeal may be lodged against the judgment. The Court of Justice of the European Union (EuGH) would then have to decide.