EUROPEAN UNION: Game Is Up for CLUSTER COLLECTOR Gaming Mark

The General Court of the European Union (GC) has dismissed an action (Case T‑673/25) brought by Wazdan Innovations Ltd., concerning its application for the EU Trade Mark (EUTM) CLUSTER COLLECTOR in Classes 9, 28, 41, and 42. The mark covers, among other things, various digital and gaming products. The court’s judgment was issued on June 10, 2026.

The registration of CLUSTER COLLECTOR was opposed in 2023 by Push Gaming Product Ltd. on the grounds of likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001. The opposition was based on its earlier EUTM, THE COLLECTOR, registered in Classes 9, 41, and 42 for goods and services in the software, gaming, and gambling sector.

In 2024, the Opposition Division of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) upheld the opposition, partially refusing the application for CLUSTER COLLECTOR for the majority of goods and services. The applicant’s attempt to appeal this decision before the Board of Appeal failed. Unsatisfied with the outcomes, the applicant proceeded with a further action to the GC.

The GC sided with the EUIPO, recognizing COLLECTOR as a distinctive element in relation to the relevant goods and services, rejecting the applicant’s argument on the alleged lack of distinctive character of that element absent additional details and evidence on file in that regard. Conversely, CLUSTER was determined to be descriptive and a weakly distinctive element for gaming software. It also held that the goods and services were partly identical and partly similar, in particular due to their functions, complementarity, and shared distribution channels. The action was thus dismissed in its entirety.

This ruling mirrors several broader trends in how conflicting marks are assessed in the Internet gaming and video game industries, particularly the rejection of attempts by gaming developers to trademark combinations of standard game words (for example, cluster, spin, slot, win, and so on) with distinctive words already registered by competitors. Such high-risk and fiercely competitive industries rely heavily on digital identity, and trademarking similar words could lead to brand confusion and the loss of market share.

Although every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of this article, readers are urged to check independently on matters of specific concern or interest. Law & Practice updates are published without comment from INTA, except where it has taken an official position.

© 2026 International Trademark Association