EUROPEAN UNION: Court Confirms Likelihood of Confusion Based on Dominant Elements

In the decision of the General Court (GC) in Case T-95/24, the applicant Laura Food Srl. appealed a decision of the Second Board of Appeal (BoA) of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). On February 14, 2017, the applicant filed EU figurative trademark application No. 016365959 in Class 30 for the following mark:

An opposition was filed by Morghati Abderrahim, Ditta Individuale, based on likelihood of confusion with earlier EU figurative marks no. 012247623 in Class 30 (Mark 1) and no. 015722275 in Class 30 (Mark 2).

The Opposition Division upheld the opposition, and the BoA dismissed the applicant’s annulment appeal. The GC examined whether the BoA had erred in its assessment under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR, focusing on the assessment of distinctive and dominant elements “4011” and “B552” of the marks. Neither party disputed that the goods were identical.

In its decision on April 30, 2025, the GC upheld the opposition. It confirmed the BoA’s conclusion that the relevant public’s attention was at most average, or even low, given that tea is an inexpensive product intended for mass consumption.

The applicant claimed that the number “4011” and the alphanumeric element “B 552” were descriptive for tea based on an earlier EUIPO decision, but the GC rejected this claim that the elements were descriptive for the goods and found that a substantial part of the public would not perceive them as an indicator of tea.

The GC held that the BoA was correct in its assessment regarding the similarity of the marks and likelihood of confusion. The elements “4011” and “B552”:

• Were common to the signs at issue;
• Appeared at different positions in the signs and in different sizes but were dominant or co-dominant as the elements were not descriptive for consumers; and thus
• Had distinctive

The other word elements—“Thé Vert de Chine,” “Chaara,” “ORIGINAL,” “ATAY IFOULKI,” words in Arabic, the figurative elements, and background color—were less important. The signs only shared a similar background color that resembled wood, but the other word elements and figurative elements resulted in a visual dissimilarity. There was some visual similarity between the signs where the dominant element of the earlier mark was included in its entirety in the application.

The GC upheld the opposition as the BoA was correct in finding likelihood of confusion among others based on the distinctive elements “4011” and “B552”.

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.

© 2025 International Trademark Association