Nerea Álvarez Barroso. Consultant | International Trademarks and Brand Intelligence Area
Now that the first few weeks of the year are behind us, it is a good time to focus on one of those issues that we will undoubtedly begin to see cited in many other proceedings: the dispute between Nokia and Nooka. This case, far from being resolved by the strength of the name or the historical weight of one of the parties, revolved strictly around the likelihood of confusion, and in which the assessment of the visual elements of the sign applied for ended up being decisive.
It all began when Nooka Space Ltd., a company dedicated to the development of digital solutions for booking and using workspaces, filed an application for a European Union trademark for a figurative sign consisting of the expression “nooka your space”, accompanied by circular graphic elements and a characteristic visual composition.
The sign was intended to identify downloadable software, technological services, communication, administration and various services linked to the management of professional spaces. A range of services that is increasingly common in today’s working environment, characterised by teleworking, flexibility, digital bookings and the use of hybrid solutions.
In response to this application, Nokia Oyj, owner of the well-known NOKIA trademark, filed an opposition based solely on the likelihood of confusion. Its main argument was based on the alleged similarity between the verbal elements “NOKIA” and “NOOKA”, arguing that the aural similarity between the two could lead consumers to believe that the goods or services came from the same company or from related companies.
In addition—and this is an important nuance—Nokia claimed that its trademark enjoyed a high degree of distinctiveness as a result of its intensive use. However, both the Office and, subsequently, the Board of Appeal concluded that the high degree distinctiveness could only be considered proven in relation to mobile phones. On the contrary, the Office determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove a high degree of distinctiveness in relation to the other goods and services relevant to the proceedings, which were precisely those targeted by the Nooka trademark.
After a comprehensive analysis of the opposition, the Office and subsequently the Court concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion.
One of the key aspects of the decision was in the way the Nooka sign was configured. This is not a simple isolated verbal term, but a structured figurative sign with significant visual impact. The design included clearly perceptible graphic elements, circular shapes and a structure that gave the trademark personality. Added to this was the expression “your space”, which added a conceptual nuance and helped to reinforce the differentiation.
The Office and the Court emphasised that no single element completely dominated the overall impression. Neither did the term “nooka” absorb the consumer’s attention, nor could the circular shapes be considered mere embellishments with no identifying value. The combination of all these elements created a visual identity of its own, sufficiently different from the purely word mark “NOKIA”.
Therefore, while recognising that “NOKIA” and “NOOKA” share a partially similar aural structure, the overall analysis of the combination — especially in its visual and conceptual dimension — led to the conclusion that the difference between the signs was clear. The aural similarity alone was not sufficient to establish a likelihood of confusion.
Another decisive factor was the context in which the services were used. Nooka operates in a predominantly digital environment, where user interaction takes place through visual interfaces: websites, mobile applications, booking platforms, digital panels or management systems. In services of this type, the consumer’s decision-making process is fundamentally visual.
The Court emphasised that the relevant public does not choose software or digital services based on their sound, but rather on their appearance, their graphic depiction, and the perception generated by the interface on which the trademark is found. The typical user of these services does not pronounce the trademark aloud when making a decision; they see it, read it and associate it with a specific design. Accordingly, the weight of aural similarity decreases and visual elements, which in this case clearly distinguished the two signs, take centre stage.
At this point, it should be clarified that, although Nokia is globally known, its reputation was not analysed in this case, simply because Nokia did not invoke it as a basis for opposition.
However, as a separate consideration — which is not part of the decision — one may wonder what would have happened had Nokia also invoked its reputation. In that case, the analysis would have been different. It would not have been necessary to prove direct confusion. It would have been sufficient to demonstrate that the use of the later sign could take unfair advantage of the reputation of the earlier trademark or damage it. But that scenario, while theoretical and interesting, had no place in this particular proceeding, where the legal debate was strictly limited to an objective comparison of the signs.
The case highlights a fundamental issue: in increasingly visual and digital markets, where consumers interact with trademarks mainly through screens, graphic identity takes on enormous importance. A sign that could be perceived as partially similar in its written or aural version can become completely different when analysed in its actual environment of use, integrated into a complete design, with colours, fonts and shapes that generate an autonomous impression.
This case is set to become a benchmark for future rulings involving figurative signs in digital sectors, because it reaffirms a fundamental idea: when user engagement and interaction take place in visual environments, the appearance of the sign can carry as much weight as—or even more than—its aural similarity.
