CABINET CHAILLOT

Recent opposition decision of EUIPO shows the difficulty to protect the stylisation of letters in a trademark

• both trademarks designates Retail services in the field of consumer electronics

• earlier mark is a purely figurative sign consisting of a continuous curvy line forming an element of three loops (other earlier trademark is a figurative trademark, using the 3 loops for the three O in the sign « myswooop »)

• the 3 loops do not describe or even allude to any of the essential, functional or otherwise important characteristics of the designated services -> inherent distinctiveness  of the figurative trademark is of an average degree

• trademarl application consists of the verbal elements ‘LOOP’ and ‘MOBILE’ written in quite standard upper-case letters, except for the middle letters ‘OO’ which are organised together in an original way forming a loop

• consumers will perceive the intersection of the ‘O’s as a stylistic approach used in the graphic representation of the verbal element of the contested sign and despite this stylisation they will recognise the word ‘LOOP’ immediately, effortlessly and without further reflection

For the opposition division, it is quite unlikely that the public will artificially overanalyse the signs to the point of confusing them or establishing an association between them because of the coincidence of a loop pattern.

Although the signs coincide in the fact that both contain a loop pattern, there are significant differences between them, consisting also in the fact that the loop (the intersection of the O’s) in the contested mark does not have a distinctive :  independent role within the sign.

Consumers will pay more attention to the words LOOP MOBILE than a slight decoration included in the middle of one of them.

Therefore, opposition B 3199137 has been rejected.

---