Gerecht bevestigt weigering van Pol’s FREEZE FRESH wegens reputatie van PAUL

Gerecht EU 4 maart 2026, IEF 23321; IEFbe 4115; ECLI:EU:T:2026:169 (Pols Erm Tarim Anonim Sirketi tegen EUIPO en Holder SAS). Het Gerecht heeft het beroep van Pols Erm Tarim Anonim Sirketi volledig verworpen en daarmee in stand gelaten dat het Uniemerk Pol’s FREEZE FRESH voor het grootste deel van de betrokken waren niet kan worden ingeschreven. Het geschil draaide uiteindelijk niet om verwarringsgevaar in de zin van artikel 8, lid 1, onder b, UMVo, maar om de ruimere reputatiebescherming van artikel 8, lid 5, UMVo. Alleen voor “live animals, organisms for breeding” in klasse 31 had de kamer van beroep de oppositie al afgewezen; voor de overige waren in de klassen 29, 30, 31 en 32 bleef de oppositie dus overeind. Het Gerecht oordeelde bovendien dat het niet bevoegd is EUIPO op te dragen de oppositie opnieuw te onderzoeken. Voor de inhoudelijke beoordeling nam het Gerecht alleen het oudere merk PAUL depuis 1889 als uitgangspunt, omdat de reputatie van PAUL LE CAFE niet was aangetoond. Volgens het Gerecht heeft PAUL in het oudere merk een normaal onderscheidend vermogen, terwijl “freeze fresh” voor de betrokken levensmiddelen en dranken beschrijvend of niet-onderscheidend is en “pol’s” het meest onderscheidende element van het aangevraagde merk vormt.

Het Gerecht volgde de kamer van beroep ook in de vergelijking van de tekens en in de toepassing van artikel 8, lid 5, UMVo. Voor het Franse publiek bestaat er volgens het Gerecht een lage visuele, maar hoge tot zeer hoge auditieve overeenstemming tussen PAUL en Pol’s, en mogelijk ook een hoge begripsmatige overeenstemming wanneer beide als verwijzing naar de voornaam Paul worden opgevat. Daarnaast was de reputatie van het oudere merk voldoende bewezen voor onder meer brood, banket en andere graanbereidingen in klasse 30, de detailhandel daarin in klasse 35 en diensten voor het verstrekken van eten en drinken in klasse 43, met name op de Franse markt. Omdat de betrokken waren allemaal binnen de voedingssector vallen, zich tot hetzelfde publiek richten en via vergelijkbare verkooppunten kunnen worden aangeboden, mocht EUIPO aannemen dat het relevante publiek een verband tussen de merken zal leggen. Daardoor bestaat een reëel risico dat het aangevraagde merk ongerechtvaardigd voordeel trekt uit het onderscheidend vermogen of de reputatie van PAUL, dus meeliften op de aantrekkingskracht en commerciële waarde van dat merk. Het verweer dat “Pol’s” teruggaat op de naam van de oprichter werd niet inhoudelijk behandeld, omdat dit pas voor het Gerecht als beroep op due cause was aangevoerd en daarom ontoelaatbaar nieuw was. Hierdoor bleef de weigering van inschrijving in stand en werd Pols bovendien in de kosten veroordeeld.

92      The question whether a link between the marks at issue exists in the mind of the relevant public must be appreciated globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case, such as: the degree of similarity between the marks at issue; the nature of the goods or services covered by those marks, including the degree of closeness or dissimilarity between those goods or services, and the relevant section of the public; the strength of the earlier mark’s reputation; the degree of its distinctive character, whether inherent or acquired through use; and the existence of a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public (see judgment of 26 September 2018, PUMA, T‑62/16, EU:T:2018:604, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited). However, the existence of a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue is not necessary, since the relevant public must only be able to establish a link between them without necessarily having to confuse them (see judgment of 28 May 2020, Martínez Albainox v EUIPO – Taser International (TASER), T‑342/19, T‑342/19, not published, EU:T:2020:234, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited).

93      In the present case, the Board of Appeal found that the link between the marks at issue would be established as regards the goods and services at issue. In particular, it noted, inter alia, that all the goods covered by the marks at issue were food products belonging to the human food sector and targeted the same public which could purchase the goods at the same points of sale. Thus, there was a close connection between the goods and services in respect of which the reputation of the earlier mark has been proved and the goods covered by the mark applied for. That fact, combined with the, admittedly low, visual similarity, with the high or very high degree of phonetic similarity, possibly supplemented by a high degree of conceptual similarity, leads to a link being established between the mark applied for and the earlier mark with a reputation.

94      As regards, first, the applicant’s claim that the distinctive character of the earlier mark is weak, it is based on the premiss that the element ‘paul’ is weakly distinctive. As is apparent from paragraph 48 above, the distinctive character of that element is normal in the present case.

95      The fact that there are more than 1 000 registered trade marks containing that element cannot invalidate that finding. It is apparent from the case-law that the mere presence of marks containing a certain term in the trade mark register without any reference to their use on the market and to any challenge to those marks on account of the existence of a likelihood of confusion, does not permit the inference that the distinctive character of that term has been weakened in relation to the goods and services in respect of which those marks are registered (see, to that effect, judgment of 23 March 2022, Vetpharma Animal Health v EUIPO – Deltavit (DELTATIC), T‑146/21, not published, EU:T:2022:159, paragraph 116 and the case-law cited).

96      As regards, second, the link between the marks at issue, it must be stated that the applicant’s vague and unsubstantiated arguments cannot call into question the Board of Appeal’s findings relating to the existence of such a link on the part of the relevant public. In particular, the Board of Appeal noted that the goods covered by the mark applied for and those in respect of which the reputation of the earlier mark had been demonstrated were food products targeted at the same public and likely to be available at the same points of sale. The applicant’s claim that those goods target different publics cannot succeed. As has already been stated in paragraph 55 above, the list of goods covered by the mark applied for does not make it possible to identify the method of preparation or preservation of those goods as referred to by the applicant. All the more so, it does not allow conclusions to be drawn as to the existence of the alleged differences as regards the public targeted by the goods covered by each of the marks at issue.

97      Furthermore, the Board of Appeal’s finding relating to the existence of a link between the marks at issue is supported by considerations relating to the similarity of the signs and the reputation of the earlier mark (see paragraph 93 above), which are free from any error of assessment. It follows, in particular, that the relevant public will be able to establish a link between the marks at issue irrespective of whether or not there is a conceptual similarity. Accordingly, the approach taken as to whether marks containing first names or surnames may be compared conceptually has no bearing on the legality of the contested decision. In those circumstances, there is no need to determine, in the present case, which hypothesis should have been adopted by the Board of Appeal.

98      As regards the question whether, when assessing the link between the marks at issue, it is necessary to take into account the manner in which the goods at issue are marketed and, for that reason, to give greater weight to the visual or phonetic similarity, it should be noted that that criterion is indeed relevant in the global assessment of a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001. Similarly, as is apparent from the case-law cited in paragraphs 22 and 92 above, the likelihood of confusion is among the relevant factors to be taken into account in assessing whether there is a link between those marks. The fact remains that, in the present case, as has already been held in paragraph 22 above, the Board of Appeal did not find that there was a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of that provision. In those circumstances, the applicant’s argument cannot succeed.