Judgment – 02/09/2026 – Health Labs Care v EUIPO, Case T635/25

Earlier right	Contested mark
Health Labs Health Labs Care

 

– The case concerned opposition proceedings relating to the application for registration of the EU figurative mark NPhealthLABS+ for goods and services in Classes 5 and 44, including sanitary preparations and articles, dietary supplements, dietetic preparations, human hygiene and beauty care and human healthcare services. The opposition was based on earlier non-registered Polish trade names Health Labs and Health Labs Care and relied on the relative ground for refusal under Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001 concerning the right to prohibit the use of a later mark on the basis of an earlier sign used in the course of trade in light of the likelihood of confusion:

– On 20 February 2023, NP Supplements Monoprosopi I.K.E. filed an application for registration of the figurative sign NPhealthLABS+:

– On 30 May 2023, Health Labs Care S.A. filed an opposition based on Polish company names protected pursuant to Article 43(2) and (10) of the Polish Civil Code of 23 April 1964 used in the course of trade in Poland and protected under the provisions of the Polish Civil Code, including the signs Health Labs and Health Labs Care.

– According to the applicant, both signs had been used in the course of trade and had acquired enhanced distinctive character and recognition in Poland for the following goods and services: “supplements, including food supplements, cosmetic supplements, dietary supplements [and] nutritional supplements”; “retail services relating to supplements; dietary and nutritional consultancy; consultancy relating to supplements”; “manufacture and sale of [all types of] supplements”.

– The Opposition Division rejected the opposition in its entirety, finding that, although the use of the sign and a certain degree of acquired enhanced distinctive character on the Polish market had been demonstrated, there was no likelihood of confusion. That decision was subsequently upheld by the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO. The Board found that the word “health” belongs to basic English vocabulary (level A1) and therefore possesses a weak distinctive character, that the overall distinctive character of the earlier mark was at most average, and that, despite the goods and services at issue being identical or similar, there was no likelihood of confusion.

– Before the General Court, the applicant raised two pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001 through an incorrect assessment of the similarity of the signs, distinctiveness, and the likelihood of confusion, as well as infringement of the right to be heard (Article 94(1) and Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 in conjunction with Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights).

– The Court stated that the relevant public consists of both the general public and professionals in Poland, noting that for the purpose of the assessment, account must be taken of the general public as the public with a lower level of attention. The level of attention of the public was considered average for services in Class 44 and above average for the remaining goods and services, including dietary supplements.

– As regards the signs, the Court held that the Board of Appeal had erred in finding that the entire relevant public in Poland would understand the English word “health”. The Court stressed that knowledge of an English word cannot be regarded as a well-known fact, that the word does not form part of basic vocabulary widely known across the entire EU, and that its Polish equivalent (“zdrowie”) displays no visual or phonetic similarity. Consequently, for a significant part of the Polish general public, the word “health” carries no specific meaning and possesses a normal degree of distinctiveness.

– As regards the visual comparison, the Court found that the signs display an average degree of similarity for a non-negligible part of the public, owing to the common elements “health” and “labs”, which, due to their central positioning and size, co-dominate the overall impression created by the mark applied for. With respect to the phonetic comparison, the Court likewise found an average degree of similarity for that group of consumers. As regards the conceptual comparison, the Court confirmed that conceptual similarity had a limited impact on the global assessment, given that for the public unfamiliar with the English language, the word “health” conveys no conceptual message.

– The Court indicated that, taking into account the normal inherent distinctive character of the element “health” and the enhanced distinctiveness acquired through use on the Polish market, the earlier mark Health Labs possessed an above-average degree of distinctive character for a non-negligible part of the relevant public.

– The Court held that the Board of Appeal had erred in its global assessment of the likelihood of confusion by focusing solely on the differentiating elements (the initials “NP” and the stylisation of the letter “A”) and by relying on the erroneous assumption that the common element “health” had weak distinctiveness.

– The Court recalled that an above-average degree of distinctive character of the earlier mark increases the likelihood of confusion, and that a higher level of attention does not mean that consumers examine signs down to the smallest detail but rather rely on an imperfect recollection of them. Considering the identity and similarity of the goods and services, as well as the average visual and phonetic similarity, the signs could create a risk of confusion.

– Consequently, the Court held that the erroneous assessment of the distinctive character of the common elements and the degree of similarity of the signs had led the Board of Appeal to the incorrect conclusion that there was no likelihood of confusion.

– The Court upheld the action brought by Health Labs Care S.A., annulled the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO in its entirety, and ordered EUIPO to pay the costs. The case was won by Health Labs Care S.A.

Case details: https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/document/T/2025/T-0635-25-00000000PI-01-P-01/ARRET_NP/325920-EN-1-html

 

Judgment – 02/09/2026 – Xaipix v EUIPO, Case T632/25

Earlier mark	Contested mark
VAPIX

– The case concerned opposition proceedings against the application for the EU figurative mark Aipix for goods in Class 9 (video surveillance systems, downloadable video recordings and interactive video software). The opposition was based on the earlier international mark VAPIX and relied on the relative ground for refusal under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, concerning the likelihood of confusion. – Xaipix sp. z o.o. filed an application for the EU figurative mark “Aipix”.

– Axis AB filed an opposition, based on the earlier international word mark VAPIX, designating the European Union, registered for goods in Class 9 (interfaces, software and hardware for video surveillance, access control and intercom systems).

– The Opposition Division rejected the opposition in its entirety. By the contested decision, the First Board of Appeal upheld the appeal and found a likelihood of confusion on the part of at least the Spanish general public with an average level of attention under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001.

– The applicant relied on four pleas: three alleging infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 concerning the level of attention, the similarity of signs, and the principle of interdependence, and a fourth alleging infringement of Article 94(1) of that regulation regarding an insufficient statement of reasons.

– As regards the alleged inadequacy of reasoning, the Court rejected the fourth plea, finding that the decision met the requirements of Article 94(1) and that the applicant’s arguments in reality challenged the merits rather than the adequacy of the reasoning.

– In respect of the definition of the relevant public, the Court rejected the applicant’s argument that the public should exhibit a heightened level of attention: in the absence of evidence for non-standardised goods, the Board rightly confirmed an average level of attention for the general public.

– On the comparison of the signs, the Court confirmed that no element of „VAPIX” is dominant, whereas „aipix” is the most distinctive element of the contested sign, with its figurative lines being decorative; the signs share a below-average visual similarity and an average phonetic similarity due to the identical final syllable „pix”, while a conceptual comparison was impossible.

– The Court confirmed that under the principle of interdependence, the phonetic aspect plays a significant role for Class 9 goods alongside visual inspection, and the Board correctly balanced all factors to find a likelihood of confusion.

– The action was dismissed in its entirety, upholding the decision of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO refusing registration of the Aipix mark; the Court ordered Xaipix sp. z o.o. to bear its own costs and those incurred by Axis AB, and ordered EUIPO to bear its own costs. The case was won by Axis AB, the proprietor of the earlier VAPIX mark.

Case details: https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/document/T/2025/T-0632-25-00000000PI-01-P-01/ARRET_NP/325906-EN-1-html

 

Judgment – 02/09/2026 – RGCC Holdings v EUIPO, Case T‑521/24

Earlier mark	Contested mark

–The case concerned opposition proceedings against the application for the EU figurative mark PHI GROUP for goods in Class 9 (software) and services in Class 41 (education). The opposition was based on earlier EU figurative marks PHIACADEMY and relied on the relative ground for refusal under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, concerning the likelihood of confusion.

– On 24 June 2022, RGCC Holdings AG filed an application for the EU figurative mark “PHI GROUP”.

– Phiacademy Doo Beograd filed an opposition based on the earlier international mark PHIACADEMY protected inter alia in Ireland, registered for services in Class 41 (providing non-downloadable electronic publications on a global computer network; distance learning courses), presented below:

– The Opposition Division upheld the opposition and refused registration of the mark applied for in respect of the goods and services in Classes 9 and 41. By the contested decision, the Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal in its entirety on the ground that there existed a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 for at least a part of the relevant public.

– The applicant relied on a single plea alleging infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, divided into four parts concerning: the comparison of the goods and services, the definition of the relevant public, the comparison of the signs, and the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

– As regards the alleged inadequacy of reasoning concerning the type of software compared, the Court found the applicant’s argument ineffective, since – irrespective of any ambiguity – the Board of Appeal had also found a likelihood of confusion even assuming a higher level of attention; moreover, it was sufficiently clear from the contested decision that the comparison covered the broader subcategory “publishing software”, not only “desktop publishing software”.

– As regards the definition of the relevant public, the Court rejected the applicant’s argument that, for “software” in Class 9, the relevant public should be limited to professionals with a high level of attention: in the absence of any restriction to a specific, specialised type of software in the list of goods, that good was rightly found to target the general public with an average level of attention as well.

– On the comparison of the goods and services, the Court confirmed a low degree of similarity between “software” (Class 9) and “providing non-downloadable electronic publications on a global computer network” (Class 41) – the decisive factor was the intended purpose (function) of the software, which coincides in part with that of the contested service (software for designing and publishing content in electronic form), and the goods and service may also share end users, origin and a complementary relationship; the mere difference in nature (tangible good/intangible service) does not preclude similarity; the applicant’s reliance on examples from EUIPO’s Similarity tool was found irrelevant.

– As regards the comparison of the signs, the Court confirmed that the only distinctive element common to both marks is “phi” (perceived by part of the public as the Greek letter, and otherwise as a fanciful but still distinctive term), whereas “academy” and “group” are devoid of distinctive character as descriptive elements (of educational services and of a group of companies, respectively); the figurative elements of both marks are not negligible but reinforce the word elements without being dominant.

– The Court confirmed an average degree of visual similarity (the common distinctive element “phi”, positioned at the beginning of both marks, outweighs differences in font, size and position of the other elements), a high degree of phonetic similarity (coinciding pronunciation of “phi”, differences confined to the non-distinctive elements “academy”/“group”) and, depending on whether “phi” is perceived as the Greek letter, either a high degree of conceptual similarity or conceptual dissimilarity – in either scenario, the Board of Appeal correctly found a likelihood of confusion.

– In its global assessment, the Court confirmed that the low degree of similarity between the goods and services was offset by the similarity of the signs (average visual, high phonetic similarity), which, taking into account the principle of imperfect recollection, leads the public to believe that the goods and services originate from the same undertaking, “PHI”.

– The action brought by RGCC Holdings AG was dismissed in its entirety, and the decision of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO refusing registration of the PHI GROUP mark was upheld. The case was won by Phiacademy Doo Beograd, the proprietor of the earlier PHIACADEMY mark.

Case details: https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/document/T/2024/T-0521-24-00000000PI-01-P-01/ARRET_NP/325909-EN-1-html

 

Judgment – 02/09/2026 – World 2 Meet Travel v EUIPO, Case T‑481/25

Earlier mark	Contested mark
JETBLUE BYBLUE

– The case concerned opposition proceedings against the registration of an EU mark newblue for goods and services in Classes 16, 35, 39, 41 and 43. The opposition was based on earlier EU marks JETBLUE and BYBLUE and relied on the relative ground for refusal under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, concerning the likelihood of confusion. – On 20 September 2021 World 2 Meet Travel, SL filed an application for the EU figurative mark “newblue”.

– JetBlue Airways Corp. filed an opposition based on the earlier word marks JETBLUE (for goods and services in Classes 16, 35, 39, 41 and 43, and separately for Class 41) and BYBLUE (for services in Classes 35, 39, 42, 43 and 45).

– The Opposition Division upheld the opposition and refused registration of the mark applied for in respect of goods and services in Classes 16, 35, 39, 41 and 43. By the contested decision, the Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal in its entirety on the ground that there existed a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 for at least the English-speaking part of the relevant public.

– The applicant relied on a single plea alleging infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, not disputing the relevant public or the similarity of the goods and services, but challenging the comparison of the signs and the resulting finding of a likelihood of confusion.

– As regards the alleged disregard of other sign elements, the Court found the applicant’s argument ineffective, since – contrary to the applicant’s claims – it was sufficiently clear from the contested decision that the Board of Appeal also took into account the differences arising from „new”, „jet” and „by” as well as the stylisation and figurative element.

– In respect of the definition of the relevant public, the Court confirmed that the English-speaking public would break down the signs into meaningful elements („jet” as aircraft, „by” as undertaking, „new” as novelty, „blue” as colour) – such a breakdown was not „artificial”, as „newblue” does not form a phrase complying with standard English grammar rules.

– On the distinctive and dominant elements, the Court confirmed that „jet” is weakly distinctive for some services and average for others, „by” is devoid of distinctiveness, „new” is at most weakly distinctive, whereas the common word element „blue” possesses average distinctive character; the figurative elements (splash shape and colours) are decorative and weakly distinctive. – In comparing the signs, the Court confirmed that the common word element „blue” plays a key role in the perception of the marks, justifying the finding that they are similar.

– The Court confirmed an average degree of visual similarity (the common element „blue” outweighs initial word differences and graphic elements), an average degree of phonetic similarity (coinciding pronunciation of „blue”, same syllabic rhythm), and an average degree of conceptual similarity (all signs refer to the colour blue through the distinctive element „blue”).

– In its global assessment, the Court confirmed that the average degree of similarity of the signs and the identity or similarity of the goods and services lead the public to believe that the goods and services originate from the same or economically-linked undertakings.

– The action brought by World 2 Meet Travel, SL was dismissed in its entirety, and the decision of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO refusing registration of the newblue mark was upheld. The case was won by JetBlue Airways Corp., the proprietor of the earlier JETBLUE and BYBLUE marks.

Case details: https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/document/T/2025/T-0481-25-00000000PI-01-P-01/ARRET_NP/325912-EN-1-html

 

Judgment – 02/09/2026 – Puma v EUIPO, Case T‑376/25

– The case concerned proceedings for a declaration of invalidity of an international registration designating the European Union in respect of a design representing a footwear sole (Class 02.04 of the Locarno Agreement). The application for a declaration of invalidity was based on the lack of novelty and lack of individual character of the contested design within the meaning of Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 4(1) of Regulation No 6/2002.

– On 15 June 2021, Sir Safety System SpA obtained through WIPO international design registration No DM/214918 designating the European Union, representing a footwear sole design.

– Puma SE filed an application for a declaration of invalidity of that design registration, relying on 30 prior designs and products, including 11 registered prior EU designs and 19 photographs of products offered on Amazon.

– The Invalidity Division dismissed the application and maintained the registration of the contested design. The Board of Appeal subsequently dismissed Puma SE’s appeal in its entirety, holding that the overall impression produced by the contested design differed from that produced by the prior designs, and that the contested design therefore possessed individual character and was new within the meaning of Regulation No 6/2002.

– Before the General Court, the applicant (Puma SE) raised a single plea alleging infringement of Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 4(1) and Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002, claiming that the Board of Appeal attached excessive weight to minor differences between the designs.

– The applicant further requested that the Court itself declare the contested design invalid. The Court held this claim inadmissible under the review of legality conducted pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, pointing out that it lacks jurisdiction to issue declaratory judgments declaring a design invalid; it treated the claim instead as a request for alteration of the contested decision pursuant to Article 61(3) of Regulation No 6/2002.

– As regards the definition of the sector and the relevant public, the Court confirmed that the product is generally a “footwear sole” (and not exclusively a working/safety shoe sole) and that the informed user exhibits a relatively high level of attention and makes a direct comparison between the designs.

– With respect to design freedom and the state of the art, the Court confirmed that the designer enjoyed a significant degree of freedom. The fact that the applicant created or followed a particle-structure trend concerns purely aesthetic perception and not the scope of protection of the design; the Court also rejected the claim regarding the improper consideration of upper elements in the prior designs.

– In comparing the designs, the Court confirmed that the particle structure of the midsole does not dominate the overall impression, and that differences in shape, colour, undersole, as well as toe and heel elements are sufficient to produce a different overall impression. The Court confirmed a different overall impression in relation to all prior designs and Amazon product photographs, pointing to differences in shape, colour, distribution of lateral particles, missing features, and different heel and undersole elements.

– Conducting a global assessment, the Court confirmed that none of the prior designs produces the same overall impression as the contested design, which means that the contested design possesses individual character and is new within the meaning of Regulation No 6/2002.

– The Court dismissed Puma SE’s action in its entirety, thereby upholding the registration of the contested design in favour of Sir Safety System SpA. The case was won by Sir Safety System SpA.

Case details: https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/document/T/2025/T-0376-25-00000000PI-01-P-01/ARRET_NP/325910-EN-1-html