EUROPEAN UNION: General Court Rejects Mechanical Application of Interdependence Principle

The General Court (GC) confirmed the likelihood of confusion with its dismissal of the action by the applicant, Unite Network SE, in case T1186/23.

In 2018, the applicant filed an application for registration of an EU Trade Mark (EUTM)

for services in Class 35. Unión Detallistas Españoles S. Coop., owner of the earlier Spanish mark

registered in Class 35 for, among other things, “wholesale and retail sale of all kinds of products, in shopping, by telephone, by catalog and by any other means not contemplated in other classes,” based on Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, opposed the EUTM application which was rejected for all services applied for except for “provision of an on-line marketplace for buyers and sellers of goods and services; auctioneering services.”

The opponent appealed for the above-cited online marketplace services and the Board of Appeal (BoA) held the following:

• That the services were similar to at least a low degree;
• That the earlier mark had average distinctiveness and the signs were visually and phonetically similar to an average degree and conceptually similar to a low degree; and
• That the relevant public was composed of the Spanish-speaking general public and professionals, and had a degree of attentiveness, which might vary from average to high.

The BoA concluded that the Opposition Division had erred in failing to find that there was a risk of confusion in relation to those services and to satisfy the appeal. The applicant addressed the GC, claiming that there was a lack of clarity and precision regarding the services, and that for a likelihood of confusion to be found, a high degree of similarity between the compared marks would have been necessary to compensate for the low degree of similarity between the services (“interdependence principle”).

On March 26, 2025, the GC rejected the action, holding that except for an incorrect finding on the degree of conceptual similarity between the compared marks, which must be, at the very least, to an average degree, the BoA was right about the rest of its findings.

This decision reminds us again that trademark owners should avoid a mechanical application of the interdependence principle to come to a correct global assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

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