Geen verwarringsgevaar tussen 88VAPE en 11Vape bij identieke en soortgelijke waren

Opposition Division EUIPO 29 oktober 2025, IEF 23270; IEFbe 4101; B/3/212/857 (Supreme Imports Limited tegen Sapor Holding GmbH). De Opposition Division van het EUIPO wijst de oppositie van Supreme Imports Limited tegen de Uniemerkaanvraag 11Vape volledig af. De oppositie was gebaseerd op het oudere Uniemerk 88VAPE en ingesteld op grond van artikel 8 lid 1 onder b EUTMR wegens vermeend verwarringsgevaar. De oppositie richtte zich tegen alle waren in klasse 34, waaronder elektronische sigaretten, e-liquids, navullingen en accessoires. De Division gaat, in het voordeel van de opposant, uit van bewezen normaal gebruik van het oudere merk. Vastgesteld wordt dat de betrokken waren grotendeels identiek zijn of ten minste soortgelijk en zich richten op het algemene publiek, dat bij vape- en tabaksproducten een relatief hoog aandachtsniveau heeft vanwege merkloyaliteit en bewuste consumentenkeuzes.

Bij de tekenvergelijking stelt de Opposition Division vast dat het gemeenschappelijke bestanddeel “vape” beschrijvend dan wel hooguit zwak onderscheidend is voor de betrokken waren. Het onderscheidend vermogen van de tekens ligt daarom vooral in de numerieke elementen “88” en “11”, die geen specifieke betekenis hebben en als onderscheidend worden aangemerkt. Hoewel de tekens dezelfde structuur hebben, verschillen zij duidelijk in hun begin, waaraan de consument doorgaans meer gewicht toekent. Visueel is slechts sprake van een beperkte overeenstemming, terwijl auditief en begripsmatig de gelijkenis zeer gering is. In de globale beoordeling oordeelt de Opposition Division dat de verschillen tussen de tekens, in combinatie met het hoge aandachtsniveau van het relevante publiek, voldoende zijn om een andere totaalindruk te creëren. Ook bij identieke waren bestaat daarom geen verwarringsgevaar in de zin van artikel 8 lid 1 onder b EUTMR. De oppositie wordt afgewezen en de kosten worden vastgesteld op EUR 300 ten laste van de opposant.

According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, in determining the existence of likelihood of confusion, trade marks have to be compared by making an overall assessment of the visual, aural and conceptual similarities between the marks. The comparison ‘must be based on the overall impression given by the marks, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant components’ (11/11/1997, C‑251/95, Sabèl, EU:C:1997:528, § 22). Likelihood of confusion must be assessed globally, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.

The goods are identical or, at least, similar and target the public at large whose degree of attention is relatively high. The earlier mark has a normal degree of distinctiveness. The signs are visually similar to a below-average degree, and aurally and conceptually similar to a very low degree. The similarities arise exclusively from the coincidence of the element ‘vape’, which is non-distinctive or, at best, weakly distinctive in relation to the goods at issue.

When marks share an element that is non-distinctive or has a low degree of distinctiveness, the assessment of likelihood of confusion will focus on the impact of the non-coinciding components on the overall impression of the marks. That assessment takes into account the similarities/differences and distinctiveness of the non-coinciding components.

In the present case, the additional elements of the signs, namely the numerals ‘88’ and ‘11’ are distinctive and appear at the beginning of the signs, where consumers tend to pay greater attention. Although the signs share merely a faint structural similarity, in that they both consist of two numerals followed by the non-distinctive (or, at best, weak) element ‘vape’, as claimed by the opponent, this is not sufficient to give rise to a likelihood of confusion, since the numerals do not coincide and bear no relationship to one another.

Therefore, it must be concluded that the assessed differences between the signs are capable of producing a sufficiently different overall impression that will allow consumers (who are, moreover, highly attentive) to safely distinguish between them. For this reason, contrary to the opponent’s claim, the Opposition Division does not find it plausible that the relevant consumer might believe that the goods come from the same or economically linked undertakings.

In addition, although, by virtue of the principle of interdependence, a lesser degree of similarity between the marks may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the goods and services, and vice versa, there is nothing to prevent a finding that, in view of the circumstances of a particular case, there is no likelihood of confusion, even where goods and services involved are assumed to be identical and there is a certain degree of similarity between the marks at issue (26/03/2020, T‑343/19, SONANCE / conlance, EU:T:2020:124, § 63). Indeed, as explained above, the differences between the signs are sufficient for the relevant public to safely distinguish between them, even if the goods are identical or, at least, similar.

Considering all the above, there is no likelihood of confusion on the part of the public. Therefore, the opposition must be rejected. 

Given that the opposition is not well founded under Article 8(1) EUTMR, it is unnecessary to examine the evidence of use filed by the opponent.