{"id":25833,"date":"2026-05-22T09:47:18","date_gmt":"2026-05-22T09:47:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/ip-case-law\/assessing-the-likelihood-of-confusion-in-relation-to-simple-figurative-marks-vaporesso-wins-the-backing-of-the-general-court-of-the-eu\/"},"modified":"2026-05-22T09:48:35","modified_gmt":"2026-05-22T09:48:35","slug":"assessing-the-likelihood-of-confusion-in-relation-to-simple-figurative-marks-vaporesso-wins-the-backing-of-the-general-court-of-the-eu","status":"publish","type":"ip-law","link":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/assessing-the-likelihood-of-confusion-in-relation-to-simple-figurative-marks-vaporesso-wins-the-backing-of-the-general-court-of-the-eu\/","title":{"rendered":"Assessing the likelihood of confusion in relation to simple figurative marks: Vaporesso wins the backing of the General Court of the EU"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Jos\u00e9 Carlos Erdozain. <\/strong>Of Counsel at PONS IP<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgment handed down by the General Court of the European Union in Case T\u201162\/25 (11 March 2026, Second Chamber) makes a significant contribution to European trade mark law regarding the likelihood of confusion (Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017\/1001), particularly with regard to the assessment of figurative marks consisting of minimal elements, such as isolated letters or basic geometric shapes. <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The dispute presents a scenario that is common in EUIPO practice: opposition based on an earlier trade mark of a weak figurative nature against a sign applied for that combines a graphic element and a word element. The Court\u2019s ruling provides further insight into three key aspects of trade mark analysis: the definition of the relevant public, the comparison of signs from the perspective of the dominant element, and the application of the principle of interdependence in contexts of limited distinctiveness. <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">With regard to the relevant public, the Court confirms the need to break down the analysis based on the nature of the goods and services at issue. In this case, it distinguishes between end consumers of goods in Class 34, relating to vaping or tobacco, and the professional recipients of the services in Classes 35 and 42. This approach reinforces established case law, according to which the level of attention paid by the average consumer varies depending on the category of goods, and may be relatively high in regulated sectors or sectors with health implications. This distinction is crucial when assessing the likelihood of confusion, as it influences both the perception of the signs and the extent of trademark protection.   <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">From the perspective of comparing goods and services, the judgment confirms a high standard for assessing similarity in the case of heterogeneous classes. The Court upholds the EUIPO\u2019s position in finding that there is no similarity between the goods in Class 34 and the services in Classes 35 and 42, emphasising that mere coexistence on the market is not enough to establish a relevant connection. In particular, it highlights that the complementarity must be close and functional, so that consumers perceive the goods and services as coming from the same company or from companies with economic ties. This reasoning limits broad interpretations of the concept of complementarity and provides legal certainty regarding the scope of protection.   <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The crux of the judgment, however, lies in the comparison of the signs. The Court partially departs from the position taken by the Board of Appeal as it reconsiders the identification of the dominant element in the sign applied for. While the EUIPO had placed decisive weight on the word element, the Court concludes that, in this specific case, the figurative element\u2013a \u2018V\u2019 enclosed in a circle\u2013captures the public\u2019s attention, given factors such as its size, position and simple design.  <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This approach is consistent with the principle that, in composite marks, the element that most immediately captures the consumer\u2019s attention may take precedence over other components, even when they are word marks. The judgment is particularly significant in that it recognises that, in certain contexts, a simple graphic element may play a predominant distinctive role in the overall impression created by the sign. <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On this basis, the Court finds that there is a moderate degree of visual and aural similarity between the signs at issue for a section of the relevant public. Aural similarity, in particular, is based on the possible identification of the graphic element with the letter \u2018V\u2019, which demonstrates a flexible interpretation of the comparison criteria, extending the analysis beyond the literal meaning of the signs. <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">From a conceptual standpoint, the Court takes a cautious approach, considering that the comparison is limited or neutral, while acknowledging that certain consumers might associate the \u2018V\u2019 with terms such as \u201cvape\u201d or \u201cvaping\u201d. This approach reflects the customary caution shown in European case law when assessing conceptual associations in signs of an abstract or ambiguous nature. <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Another key aspect of the ruling is the assessment of the distinctive nature of the earlier trade mark. The Court confirms its inherent weakness, in line with the established case law which attributes a low degree of distinctiveness to signs consisting of a single letter or simple geometric elements, unless there is a high degree of stylisation or intensive use on the market has been demonstrated. It also rejects that it has acquired distinctiveness, considering the evidence provided to be insufficient.  <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The most significant aspect of the judgment, however, lies in the application of the principle of interdependence, according to which the overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion must take all relevant factors into account as a whole. In this regard, the Court points out that the weakness of the earlier trade mark does not automatically exclude the existence of a likelihood of confusion, particularly when circumstances such as the identity of the goods and a significant degree of similarity between the signs are present. <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This conclusion is of particular practical importance, as it clarifies the tendency to underestimate the protection of weak trade marks, reinforcing the idea that their scope is not merely residual. In certain cases, even signs with little inherent distinctiveness may prevent the registration of subsequent trade marks if the combination of factors leads to a perception of a common commercial origin. <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In short, Judgment T\u201162\/25 consolidates and refines European case law regarding the likelihood of confusion, providing clarity on the assessment of simple figurative marks and the identification of the dominant element. Its significance lies in the precision with which it strikes a balance between the protection of prior rights and the need to prevent excessive monopolies over signs of common use, thereby contributing to a more consistent and predictable interpretation of the European Union\u2019s trade mark system. <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":25832,"template":"","categorias-ip-litigations":[116],"class_list":["post-25833","ip-law","type-ip-law","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","categorias-ip-litigations-trademarks"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v26.2 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Assessing the likelihood of confusion in relation to simple figurative marks: Vaporesso wins the backing of the General Court of the EU<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The judgment handed down by the General Court of the European Union in Case T\u201162\/25 (11 March 2026, Second Chamber) makes a significant contribution to European trade mark law regarding the likelihood of confusion (Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017\/1001), particularly with regard to the assessment of figurative marks consisting of minimal elements, such as isolated letters or basic geometric shapes.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Assessing the likelihood of confusion in relation to simple figurative marks: Vaporesso wins the backing of the General Court of the EU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The judgment handed down by the General Court of the European Union in Case T\u201162\/25 (11 March 2026, Second Chamber) makes a significant contribution to European trade mark law regarding the likelihood of confusion (Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017\/1001), particularly with regard to the assessment of figurative marks consisting of minimal elements, such as isolated letters or basic geometric shapes.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/assessing-the-likelihood-of-confusion-in-relation-to-simple-figurative-marks-vaporesso-wins-the-backing-of-the-general-court-of-the-eu\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"PONS IP\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-05-22T09:48:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/img-VAPORESSO-IPCase-web.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"960\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"600\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/assessing-the-likelihood-of-confusion-in-relation-to-simple-figurative-marks-vaporesso-wins-the-backing-of-the-general-court-of-the-eu\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/assessing-the-likelihood-of-confusion-in-relation-to-simple-figurative-marks-vaporesso-wins-the-backing-of-the-general-court-of-the-eu\/\",\"name\":\"Assessing the likelihood of confusion in relation to simple figurative marks: Vaporesso wins the backing of the General Court of the EU\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/assessing-the-likelihood-of-confusion-in-relation-to-simple-figurative-marks-vaporesso-wins-the-backing-of-the-general-court-of-the-eu\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/assessing-the-likelihood-of-confusion-in-relation-to-simple-figurative-marks-vaporesso-wins-the-backing-of-the-general-court-of-the-eu\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/img-VAPORESSO-IPCase-web.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-22T09:47:18+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-05-22T09:48:35+00:00\",\"description\":\"The judgment handed down by the General Court of the European Union in Case T\u201162\/25 (11 March 2026, Second Chamber) makes a significant contribution to European trade mark law regarding the likelihood of confusion (Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017\/1001), particularly with regard to the assessment of figurative marks consisting of minimal elements, such as isolated letters or basic geometric shapes.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/assessing-the-likelihood-of-confusion-in-relation-to-simple-figurative-marks-vaporesso-wins-the-backing-of-the-general-court-of-the-eu\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/assessing-the-likelihood-of-confusion-in-relation-to-simple-figurative-marks-vaporesso-wins-the-backing-of-the-general-court-of-the-eu\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/assessing-the-likelihood-of-confusion-in-relation-to-simple-figurative-marks-vaporesso-wins-the-backing-of-the-general-court-of-the-eu\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/img-VAPORESSO-IPCase-web.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/img-VAPORESSO-IPCase-web.png\",\"width\":960,\"height\":600},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/assessing-the-likelihood-of-confusion-in-relation-to-simple-figurative-marks-vaporesso-wins-the-backing-of-the-general-court-of-the-eu\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Portada\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"IP Law\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/ip-litigations\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Assessing the likelihood of confusion in relation to simple figurative marks: Vaporesso wins the backing of the General Court of the EU\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/\",\"name\":\"PONS IP\",\"description\":\"Consultora Global especializada en Propiedad Industrial e Intelectual.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#organization\",\"name\":\"PONS IP\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/logo-pons-ip.svg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/logo-pons-ip.svg\",\"width\":166,\"height\":26,\"caption\":\"PONS IP\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Assessing the likelihood of confusion in relation to simple figurative marks: Vaporesso wins the backing of the General Court of the EU","description":"The judgment handed down by the General Court of the European Union in Case T\u201162\/25 (11 March 2026, Second Chamber) makes a significant contribution to European trade mark law regarding the likelihood of confusion (Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017\/1001), particularly with regard to the assessment of figurative marks consisting of minimal elements, such as isolated letters or basic geometric shapes.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Assessing the likelihood of confusion in relation to simple figurative marks: Vaporesso wins the backing of the General Court of the EU","og_description":"The judgment handed down by the General Court of the European Union in Case T\u201162\/25 (11 March 2026, Second Chamber) makes a significant contribution to European trade mark law regarding the likelihood of confusion (Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017\/1001), particularly with regard to the assessment of figurative marks consisting of minimal elements, such as isolated letters or basic geometric shapes.","og_url":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/assessing-the-likelihood-of-confusion-in-relation-to-simple-figurative-marks-vaporesso-wins-the-backing-of-the-general-court-of-the-eu\/","og_site_name":"PONS IP","article_modified_time":"2026-05-22T09:48:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":960,"height":600,"url":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/img-VAPORESSO-IPCase-web.png","type":"image\/png"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/assessing-the-likelihood-of-confusion-in-relation-to-simple-figurative-marks-vaporesso-wins-the-backing-of-the-general-court-of-the-eu\/","url":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/assessing-the-likelihood-of-confusion-in-relation-to-simple-figurative-marks-vaporesso-wins-the-backing-of-the-general-court-of-the-eu\/","name":"Assessing the likelihood of confusion in relation to simple figurative marks: Vaporesso wins the backing of the General Court of the EU","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/assessing-the-likelihood-of-confusion-in-relation-to-simple-figurative-marks-vaporesso-wins-the-backing-of-the-general-court-of-the-eu\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/assessing-the-likelihood-of-confusion-in-relation-to-simple-figurative-marks-vaporesso-wins-the-backing-of-the-general-court-of-the-eu\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/img-VAPORESSO-IPCase-web.png","datePublished":"2026-05-22T09:47:18+00:00","dateModified":"2026-05-22T09:48:35+00:00","description":"The judgment handed down by the General Court of the European Union in Case T\u201162\/25 (11 March 2026, Second Chamber) makes a significant contribution to European trade mark law regarding the likelihood of confusion (Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017\/1001), particularly with regard to the assessment of figurative marks consisting of minimal elements, such as isolated letters or basic geometric shapes.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/assessing-the-likelihood-of-confusion-in-relation-to-simple-figurative-marks-vaporesso-wins-the-backing-of-the-general-court-of-the-eu\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/assessing-the-likelihood-of-confusion-in-relation-to-simple-figurative-marks-vaporesso-wins-the-backing-of-the-general-court-of-the-eu\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/assessing-the-likelihood-of-confusion-in-relation-to-simple-figurative-marks-vaporesso-wins-the-backing-of-the-general-court-of-the-eu\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/img-VAPORESSO-IPCase-web.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/img-VAPORESSO-IPCase-web.png","width":960,"height":600},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/ip-case-law\/assessing-the-likelihood-of-confusion-in-relation-to-simple-figurative-marks-vaporesso-wins-the-backing-of-the-general-court-of-the-eu\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Portada","item":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"IP Law","item":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/ip-litigations\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Assessing the likelihood of confusion in relation to simple figurative marks: Vaporesso wins the backing of the General Court of the EU"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/","name":"PONS IP","description":"Consultora Global especializada en Propiedad Industrial e Intelectual.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#organization","name":"PONS IP","url":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/logo-pons-ip.svg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/logo-pons-ip.svg","width":166,"height":26,"caption":"PONS IP"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ip-law\/25833","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ip-law"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/ip-law"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/25832"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25833"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"categorias-ip-litigations","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ponsip.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categorias-ip-litigations?post=25833"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}