Sign similarity despite graphic simplicity – EuG strengthens protection of Armani mark

In a dispute concerning two abstract figurative marks with V-shaped arranged lines, the EuG decided that even minor visual similarities in simply designed signs can give rise to a likelihood of confusion.

The background of the proceedings was an opposition by Giorgio Armani SpA against the registration of a Union figurative mark applied for by Shenzhen City Chongzheng Technology Co. Ltd, which claimed protection, inter alia, for products such as headphones, USB cables and chargers. Armani based the opposition on an earlier Union mark showing a stylized eagle with horizontal lines in V-shape and protected, inter alia, for cases for computer cables and other electronic protective sleeves.

earlier Armani mark

opposed mark application

Both the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO rejected the opposition. The Board of Appeal particularly denied a similarity of the signs in question and proceeded on the basis of a very different overall impression, so that it also assumed no likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of the Union Trade Mark Regulation (UTMR). A further examination pursuant to Article 8(5) UTMR was not carried out, as in its view there was already a complete absence of sign similarity.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (EuG) disagreed in its judgment of 27.11.2024, Az. T-509/23 with this assessment and set aside the decision of the Board of Appeal. It found that there is indeed a certain visual similarity between the two figurative marks. Both marks use horizontal lines arranged in a V-shape. Although there are differences in the graphic design, such as in the thickness of the lines, in additional design elements such as the eagle's head in the earlier mark or the extended lower line in the later mark, the overall impression retained for the average consumer from a certain distance would be one of a similar "V" consisting of horizontal stripes. Since consumers, as a matter of experience, remember signs only incompletely and simple graphic elements are more difficult to distinguish from one another, a degree of similarity, at least minimal, could not be ruled out.

On the basis of this established sign similarity, the Board of Appeal should have examined, within the scope of a comprehensive overall assessment, the further requirements of a likelihood of confusion, including the similarity of goods and the distinctive character of the earlier mark. Furthermore, it would have been necessary to examine whether the use of the later mark is capable of taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the well-known earlier mark or impairing it without justification, with regard to the enhanced protection of well-known marks pursuant to Article 8(5) UTMR.

Since the Board of Appeal had completely omitted these further examinations on the basis of its assumption of an absence of sign similarity, the EuG declared the decision of the Board of Appeal to be erroneous in law. It accordingly set it aside and referred the case back to the EUIPO for fresh decision.

Conclusion

The decision makes clear that, in particular with graphically simple, abstract marks – such as geometric shapes or stylized symbols – even minor visual coincidences can give rise to sign similarity. For trade mark applicants, this means: even seemingly minor design similarities to existing figurative marks can be problematic.