The judgment of 11 March 2026 (Case T‑62/25, V VENILO) provides important guidance on the assessment of distinctiveness and similarity in figurative trade marks composed of letters. The General Court confirmed the existence of a likelihood of confusion in relation to identical Class 34 goods and partially upheld the arguments advanced by PONS IP in proceedings before the European Union courts.

PONS IP successfully represented its client before the General Court of the European Union in Case T‑62/25, decided on 11 March 2026. The ruling addresses a matter of significant practical importance for both the vaping industry and EU trade mark law: the scope of protection and distinctive character of figurative signs composed essentially of letters.

The dispute arose from an application for registration of the figurative EU trade mark “V VENILO” in respect of goods and services in Classes 34, 35 and 42. The application was opposed on the basis of an earlier EU figurative mark consisting essentially of a black letter “V” enclosed within a circle and protected, inter alia, for goods in Classes 9 and 34. The opposition relied on Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, alleging a likelihood of confusion between the signs.

Both the Opposition Division and, subsequently, the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) dismissed the opposition. While acknowledging that the relevant Class 34 goods were identical, the Board considered the similarity between the signs to be low and found that the earlier mark had not acquired enhanced distinctiveness through use. It further excluded any likelihood of confusion in relation to the services in Classes 35 and 42 on the basis of their dissimilarity to the goods covered by the earlier mark.

The General Court first confirmed the definition of the relevant public, characterised by a high level of attention: consumers of tobacco and vaping products in relation to Class 34 goods, and professionals in relation to the services in Classes 35 and 42, with the assessment carried out across the European Union as a whole. It also upheld the finding that there was no similarity between the services in Classes 35 and 42 and the goods at issue, given the absence of complementarity and any sufficiently close link capable of supporting a likelihood of confusion.

However, the core of the judgment lies in the comparison of the signs in relation to the identical goods in Class 34. On this point, the Court departed, in part, from the Board of Appeal’s reasoning. It held that, for a non-negligible part of the relevant public, the figurative element consisting of the letter “V” within a circle in the contested mark is dominant in the overall impression, owing to its size, position and visual prominence over the word element “venilo”.

On that basis, the Court found that the graphic differences between the respective signs do not offset the similarity resulting from their shared structural concept. It therefore assessed the visual and phonetic similarity as medium, rather than low, for that segment of the public. Although the Court confirmed that the earlier mark has a weak inherent distinctive character and that enhanced distinctiveness had not been established, it recalled the principle of interdependence governing the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

Accordingly, the General Court concluded that a likelihood of confusion does exist in relation to the identical goods in Class 34 and annulled the Board of Appeal’s decision to that extent. The appeal was dismissed in all other respects, confirming the absence of confusion in relation to the services in Classes 35 and 42.

The judgment reinforces key principles of EU trade mark law concerning the assessment of letter-based figurative marks and demonstrates that even signs with limited inherent distinctiveness may benefit from protection where the similarity of signs and identity of goods converge. The decision also highlights the expertise of PONS IP’s Legal Advisory team in complex trade mark disputes before the General Court of the European Union, particularly in matters involving likelihood of confusion, distinctive character and the scope of protection afforded to figurative marks.