No likelihood of confusion between "CHOO" and "CHHU". EUIPO rejects opposition by JIMMY CHOO

The Opposition Division of the EUIPO has completely dismissed the opposition filed by the well-known luxury brand JIMMY CHOO against the application for the mark "CHHU". Despite identical goods – jewellery and jewels – the Office found no likelihood of confusion.

By means of Decision of 4 September 2025, the Opposition Division of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has rejected the opposition by J. Choo Limited against the Union mark application "CHHU", No. 19057106 (word mark). The opposition was based on several earlier trademark rights, in particular the international registration "CHOO" (word mark, No. 1 785 612) and another international registration (No. 1 443 377, figurative mark). The opposition was based on Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, which prohibits registration if there exists a likelihood of confusion between the marks.

The opponent, proprietor of the well-known luxury brand JIMMY CHOO, had initially also relied on claims under Art. 8(5) EUTMR (reputation protection), but withdrew these claims in the course of the proceedings. The EUIPO therefore had to examine solely whether there exists a likelihood of confusion between "CHOO" and "CHHU" in relation to jewellery goods within the meaning of Class 14.

Identical goods, but no similar overall impression

The Office first established that the goods at issue are identical. Both the earlier mark "CHOO" and the applied-for mark "CHHU" cover jewellery, jewels, bracelets and similar luxury items. These are directed at both the general public and professional circles with heightened attentiveness, since jewellery is frequently a luxury good or gift item. Therefore, a high degree of attention on the part of consumers must be assumed.

In its analysis of the signs, the EUIPO clarified that both marks consist of short, four-letter fanciful words that have no discernible meaning. Short signs are particularly susceptible to minor deviations, as differences are more readily perceived. Whilst both signs begin with "CH", they differ in their endings "OO" and "HU". The unusual letter combination "CHH" in the younger sign additionally contributes to distinguishability.

Visually, the Opposition Division assessed the signs as only below average similar, phonetically, however, they could sound identical, as "CHHU" would presumably be pronounced like "CHOO". There is no conceptual similarity due to the absence of meaning.

Weighting of differences: visual perception decisive

In its overall assessment, the Opposition Division emphasised that jewellery goods are predominantly perceived and selected visually, such as in shops or online stores. Therefore, the visual differences carry special weight. Even where the goods are identical and there is phonetic similarity, the optical difference prevails.

Moreover, consumers purchasing such products pay heightened attention when making their purchase decision. These circumstances led to the optical difference between the endings "OO" and "HU" being decisive.

The Office therefore concluded that the overall impression created by the signs differs and there is no likelihood that consumers would associate the marks "CHHU" and "CHOO" with the same undertaking. Accordingly, the opposition was completely dismissed.

Conclusion and practical tips

The decision demonstrates impressively that short trademark words such as "CHOO" and "CHHU" must be examined particularly carefully. Even minor differences in the letter sequence can exclude a likelihood of confusion, particularly where the goods at issue are perceived visually and purchased with heightened attention.

Enterprises should therefore observe the following when developing marks:

• With short word marks, minor deviations are of great importance.
• Visual differences are often decisive when products are primarily seen rather than heard.
• Even well-known marks such as JIMMY CHOO cannot extend the scope of protection of their signs without limitation.
• A thorough trademark search and legal assessment prior to filing can avoid future conflicts.

This assessment is consistent with the established case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Court already made clear in the case T-106/06 – BAUHOW / BAUHAUS (Judgment of 23 January 2008) that in the case of goods which are predominantly perceived and selected visually, the visual differences between the marks carry special weight.

We, trademark lawyers, advise and represent clients comprehensively in the filing, defence and enforcement of their trademark rights – nationally, throughout Europe and internationally. Our expertise also covers the conduct of opposition proceedings before the EUIPO and the DPMA.