Risk of confusion in trade mark law: Why "Lux" and "Luv" are distinguishable according to the BPatG

The Federal Patent Court (BPatG) decided in a decision of 4 February 2026 (Az. 29 W (pat) 560/22) an important practical case concerning the risk of confusion for short marks.

At the centre of the case was the question of whether there was a trade mark law-relevant risk of confusion between the marks "Lux" and "Luv" for sanitary products. Contrary to the lower authority, the court decided in favour of the proprietor of the "Lux" mark and rejected the opposition entirely.

The decision demonstrates that even with identical goods and average distinctiveness, a risk of confusion should not be hastily assumed. Rather, the decisive factor is the actual perception of the signs by the relevant public.

Risk of confusion for identical goods: Starting point of the examination

The starting point for the legal assessment is the fact that the opposing marks relate to largely identical or highly similar goods. Both signs claim protection for products in class 11, in particular in the field of bathtubs, shower trays and wash basins.

According to established principles in trade mark law, the risk of confusion must be assessed taking into account all the circumstances of the individual case. Three factors in particular interact with one another:

• the similarity of the goods
• the similarity of the signs
• the distinctiveness of the earlier mark

In the present case, the court – as already did the German Patent and Trade Mark Office – assumed average distinctiveness of the mark "Luv". Due to the identity of the goods, enhanced requirements were therefore to be placed on the distance between the marks.

Attention of the relevant public: No decisive increase

The proprietor of the "Lux" mark argued that the goods in question were high-quality and durable products which were purchased with increased attention. However, the court only partially followed this argument.

Although there may be slightly increased attention in the sanitary products field, for example due to the functional importance and partly higher prices, the products are often standardised and are also distributed through hardware stores. The average consumer therefore does not necessarily make his purchasing decision with particular attention to the mark.

Accordingly, there remained an average to at most slightly heightened degree of attention, which does not significantly shift the assessment of the risk of confusion in favour of either party.

Risk of confusion for short marks: Differences carry particular weight

A central point of the decision is the classification of the signs as so-called short marks. Both "Lux" and "Luv" consist of only three letters. According to established case law, even minor deviations can be decisive in the case of such short signs.

The court emphasises that short words are regularly remembered more precisely in the memory of the relevant public. As a result, differences stand out more than with longer signs. This is particularly true when the deviations are at distinctive positions such as the beginning or end of the word.

Visual appearance and sound: Clear differences despite identical initial letters

Despite the identical initial letters "Lu", the court denied a relevant similarity of the signs.

In the visual appearance, the different final letter is particularly significant. The "x" in "Lux" differs clearly from the "v" in "Luv". Contrary to what the lower authority assumed, it should not be assumed that the relevant public perceives a graphic similarity of these letters on analysis. Rather, the different design remains clearly recognisable and influences the image retained in memory.

Also in sound, according to the court's view, there are sufficient differences. "Lux" ends with a hard, short sound, while "Luv" has a softer and longer ending due to the "v". These differences in sound additionally contribute to the marks being kept apart.

Semantic content reduces the risk of confusion

Particular significance is attached to the fact that at least the mark "Lux" has a recognisable semantic content for the relevant public. This may arise from various associations, for example:

• as a Latin word for "light"
• as a physical unit of measurement
• as an allusion to "luxury"
• as a phonetic proximity to the term "lynx"

According to established case law, such semantic content alone may be sufficient to reduce the risk of confusion. This is because an understandable semantic content makes it easier for the relevant public to distinguish marks and avoid confusion.

Whether "Luv" is also unambiguously understood by the relevant public – for example as a nautical term – the court left open. What was decisive was that the semantic classification of "Lux" alone had a differentiating effect.

Result: No risk of confusion despite tight starting position

In its overall assessment, the Federal Patent Court found no risk of confusion between the marks "Lux" and "Luv". The decisive factors were in particular:

• the differences in short signs
• the clearly perceptible deviations in visual appearance and sound
• the existing semantic content of the mark "Lux"

The court thus overturned the decision of the DPMA and rejected the opposition against the "Lux" mark. The mark thus remains on the register.

Significance for practice: Clearer guidelines for assessing the risk of confusion in short marks

The decision provides important guidance for assessing the risk of confusion in trade mark law:

• Even with identical goods, a risk of confusion is not automatic
• For short marks, even minor differences may be sufficient
• Final letters play an essential role in distinguishability
• Semantic content can decisively support differentiation

For companies and trade mark proprietors, the decision shows that the defence of even short marks can be successful if they have distinctive differences or a recognisable semantic content.

Our expertise in trade mark law

Our firm has particular expertise in trade mark law and advises companies comprehensively on the development, registration and defence of their marks. We assist in opposition proceedings as well as in court disputes and develop tailor-made strategies to minimise risks in connection with the risk of confusion.